SEY 
A 





SAN Fe 1927 
“y > 
LO Ogg. sew 






BM 525 .F73 1926 
Franck, Adolphe, 1809-1893. 


The kabbalah 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/kabbalahorreligi0Ofran 





ADOLPH FRANCK 


1809-1893 


ein OF Pings » 

CANALS 1927 
4 Ss 
£2 Oe1g41 sew 






THE KABBALAH 


OR 


THE RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY 
OF THE HEBREWS 


B ¥6 en 


ADOLPH FRANCK 


oN 


REVISED AND ENLARGED TRANSLATION 


BY 


Dr. I. SOSSNITZ 


CNS 


NEW YORK 
THE KABBALAH PUBLISHING COMPANY 


1926 





SoPelAt EDEION 


SOLD BY SUBSCRIPTION ONLY 


Published by 
THE KABBALAH PUBLISHING COMPANY 
25 Mount Hope Place 
New York City 





DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY 
OF MY UNFORGETTABLE TEACHER 
AND FATHER 


JoszerpH L. Sossnitz 


GREAT KABBALIST, THOROUGH SCIENTIST, 
TRUE PHILOSOPHER 
AND INDEFATIGABLE SEEKER 
FOR TRUTH 


AR 


IN HUMBLE DEVOTION 
THE TRANSLATOR 


COPYRIGHT 1926 
BY 


DR. I. SOSSNITZ 


ee 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES 


MORRIS REISS PRESS 
NEW YORK 











. ; . ; ‘ oye ty ; 
naa Pe 

- >) oP Unio 
ae eh. 


> 
’ 
ce 
‘ 
a 
‘ s 4 
‘ 
ry 
ron 
’ . 
‘ Sed 
os 7) ’ 
A g - ¥ 
1 
f , 
; , 
d rss 7 
7) Cs , a 7-4 
vy En Meare « , 


THE SEPHIROTH 
AND THEIR INTERRELATIONS 


WISDOM 


INTELLIGENCE | 
oS iy > ) n 


JUDGMENT | Ff] MERCY 
VT ont 7 > : a oy slo. 
GRANDEUR 


STRENGTH We L A 


TRIUMPH 


GLORY 
ns 


STi linat 





FOUNDATION 
(BASIS) 


KINGDOM (X 





SUMMARY OF CONTENTS 


PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION—Sossnitz 


PREFACE TO THE GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST 
FRENCH EDITION—Jellinek 


FOREWORD TO THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION—Franck 
PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR—Franck 


Importance of the Kabbalah. Etymology and Orthography of the 
word Kabbalah. Difference between Kabbalah and Masorah. Influence 
of the Kabbalah. 


History of the study of the Kabbalah. Moses Cordevero. Isaac 
Luria. Richard Simon. Burnet. Huttingen. Wolf. Basnage. Bartolocci. 
Buddeus. Brucker. Abraham Cohen Herrera. Raymond Lullus. Ars Magna. 
Pico de la Mirandolo. Reuchlin. Joseph of Castile (Gikatilla). 
Abraham ben Dior (David). Descent of the Pythagorean doctrine from 
the Kabbalah. Summary contents of the book “De Verbo Mirifico.” 
Cornelius Agrippa. De Occulta Philosophia. Postel. Pictorius. Paul 
Ricci. Leo the Hebrew. De Coelesti Agricultura. Joseph Voysin. 
Kircher. Knorr von Rosenroth. “Kabbalah Denudata.” George 
Wachter. Moses Germanus. The book “Spinozism in Judaism.” 
Elucidarius Cabalisticus. Old and New Kabbalists. 


Metaphysical character of the Kabbalah. Brucker. Johann Frederick 
Kleuker. Tiedemann. Tennermann. M. Freistadt. Tholuck. Diverse 
conceptions of the Kabbalah. Tendency of the author. 


INTRODUCTION 


The Kabbalah is neither Philosophy nor Religion. Position of the 
Kabbalah among other products of the human mind. _ Religion or 
Revelation. Tradition. Belief in Authority. Reason. Rational 
Theology. Mystics. Gerson. 


Belief in Tradition and in Authority. Reasoning and Mysticism in 
Christianity. Mohammedanism and Judaism. Origenes. Jacob Boehm. 
Sunnism. Chiism. Motecallemim. Mutazilahs. Karmates. Mishnah. 
Talmud. Karaites. Saducees. R. Saadia. Abraham ibn Ezra. R. Bachye. 
Moses Maimonides. Philo. Method of Procedure. 

1X 


PART ONE 
CuHapteR I—The Antiquity of the Kabbalah. 


Contentions of the followers of the Kabbalah. Reuchlin. Pico de la 
Mirandola. Tanaim. Amoraim. Gemara. Talmud. Story of the 
Creation (myyxi3a myn). Story of the Chariot (nazsm nwyp). Metatron. 
Names of God. Maimonides’ view. Editing of the Mishnah. R. Akkiba. 
Simeon ben Yohai. R. Josi of Zipporis. Joshua ben Hananyah. R. 
Eliezer ha-Godel. Onkelos, his Aramaic translation. Memra. At Bash. 
Age of the Kabbalah. 


Essenes. Josephus. Philo. 


CuaptTer I1—The Kabbalistic Books. Authenticity of the Sefer 
Yetzirah. 


Sefer ha-Bahir. The two chief works of the Kabbalah. Sefer 
Yetzirah mentioned in the Talmud. Editing of the Babylonian and 
Jerusalem Talmud. 


Proofs of the authenticity of the Sefer Yetzirah from the book itself. 
Practical Kabbalah. The designation “Body” in the Sefer Yetzirah. 
Words of foreign origin. 


Another proof of the age of the Sefer Yetzirah. Interpolations. 
Manuscripts. Mantua edition. Saadia’s translation and commentary. 
The designation of Abraham: Friend of God. Khalil Allah. Abraham 
as author of the Sefer Yetzirah. Moses Votril. R. Akkiba as author 
of the Sefer Yetzirah. Proof to the contrary. The assumpton that there 
have been two Sefer Yetzirahs. Morinus. Isaac de Lattes. Results 
of the investigation. 


CHAPTER IlI—Authenticity of the Zohar. 


Characteristics of the Zohar. Views on the age and origin of the 
Zohar. Abraham ben Solomon Zacuto. Gedalyah. Testing the views. 
Simeon ben Yohai’s abode in the cave. Names and facts in the Zohar 
which must have been unknown to Simeon ben Yohai. Moses de Leon 
also can not be the author of the Zohar. The language of the Zohar 
as criterion. Moses de Leon counterfeited the Zohar. Neither 
Christianity nor its founder is mentioned in the Zohar. The Sefiroth 
not an imitation of the Aristotelian categories. Ideas and expressions of 
the Zohar are found before the thirteenth century. Saadia. Hieronymus. 
Similarity of the Kabbalah with Syrian Gnosticism. 


Refutation of the hypothesis that the Kabbalah was patterned after 
the Arabo-mystic philosophy. De la Nouze. Tholuck. Main points in 
Arabic mysticism. Difference of this from the Kabbalistic system. 


The foundation of the Zohar was laid by Simeon ben Yohai. 
Further development. Proofs. Fragments from the Zohar. Idra Rabba. 
Idra Zutah. There is often not the least connection between the Biblical 
texts and the explanations in the Zohar. The Zohar accepted as standard. 
Description of the death of R. Simeon ben Yohai. Further proofs. The 
contents of the Zohar are known by tradition before its publication. 
The teachers of the Zohar move in the first seven centuries of the 


x 


Christian era. Refutation of two objections. ‘The Talmud knows the 
spheric shape of the earth. Anatomical knowledge of the Zohar. The 
Jews were compelled to study anatomy. Concluding remarks. 


PART TWO 


Cuaprer I—The doctrine contained in the Kabbalistic Books. 
Analysis of the Sefer Yetzirah. Comparison of the Sefer Yetzirah with 
the Bible. 


CHaApTeR I]—Analysis of the Zohar. Allegorical method of the 
Kabbalists. Gematria. Nutrikon. Temurah. 


CHapTeR I1I—Continuation of the analysis of the Zohar. The 
Kabbalists’ conception of the Nature of God. 


Metaphysical and Poetical representation. Description of the 
Divine Greatness. The Celestial Man. Ayn-Sof. The ten Sefiroth. 
Fundamental principles. Adam Kadmon. Faces. Different conceptions 
of the Sefiroth. Explanation of the Sefiroth. Division of the Sefiroth 
into three classes. The King and the Queen. Figures of the Sefiroth 
Canals. Unsuccessful creation. Sexual difference. Masculine and 
Feminine Principle. Shells. God must be present in the creation. 


CHapTer 1V—Continuation of the analysis of the Zohar. The 
Kabbalists’ view of the world. Creation. The universe is complete; 
nothing in it is absolutely bad. Symbolical conception. Celestial 
alphabet. Physiognomics. Four protofaces. Demonology and Angelology. 


CHAPTER V—Continuation of the Analysis of the Zohar. Views of 
the Kabbalists on the Human Soul. 


Man according to Genesis. The Talmud on Man. View of the 
Zohar on Man. Man as the sum and substance of the entire creation. 
Threefold nature of Man. The idea of the body. Yehida. Haya. Life. 
The Celestial Man. Male and Female Souls. Pre-existence. Predestina- 
tion. Metempsychosis. Migration of the Soul according to Hieronymus. 
Pregnancy. The inner and outer countenance. Love and Fear. Song 
of Songs. Gerson. Fenelon. The fall of the first man. The Zohar 
knows of no original sin. Explanation of the nakedness of the first 
human beings. Isaac Luria. Elements of the Kabbalah. 


PART THREE 


CuHapTer I—Systems which offer some resemblance to the Kabbalah. 
Relation of the Kabbalah to the philosophy of Plato. 


CuapTer I]—Relation of the Kabbalah to the Alexandrian School. 


The Kabbalah originates in Palestine. Rabbinical institutions and 
the most famous Talmudists are unknown to the Alexandrian Jews. 
The Jews of Palestine have also no exact knowledge of the education 
of their Alexandrian brethren. Greek language and Greek knowledge. 
Greek knowledge is detested by the Talmudists and highly esteemed by 
the Kabbalah. Johanan ben Sakai. Gamaliel. Similarity between the 


x1 


Kabbalah and Neoplatonism. Animonius. Porphyrius. The Kabbalah 
can not descend from the Alexandrians. 


CHAPTER III—Relation of the Kabbalah to the doctrine of Phile. 


Philo not mentioned by the Jewish writers of the Middle Ages. 
Component parts of the Philonic doctrine. Confirmation. Cosmogony. 
Theology. Angelology. Anthropology. Doctrine of human _ liberty. 
Moral teachings. Conclusions as to the origin of the Kabbalah. The 
Septuagint. Jesus Sirach. The Book of Wisdom. 


Cuaprer IV—Relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity. 


The principles of the Kabbalah are older than the Christian dogmas. 
The Kabbalah has led many to Christianity. Simon Magus.  Elxai. 
Bardasanos. Codex Nazareus. Basillides and Valentine. The origin of 
the Kabbalah must be looked for somewhere else. 


CHAPTER V—Relation of the Kabbalah to the religion of the 
Chaldeans and Persians. 


Chronological investigations into the influence of the Parsees upon 
the Jews. Influence of Parseism upon Judaism. Parallel between the 
Zoroastrian doctrine and the metaphysical principles of the Kabbalah. 
Sabbatai Zevi. Zoharites. Hassidim. Progress of the Kabbalah beyond 
the theology of the Zend Avesta. The loosening of religious fetters in 
Alexandria. Influence of the Kabbalah upon the Hermetic and Mystic 
philosophy. Results of the investigation. 


APPENDIX 


Bibliographic notices on the Zohar. Editions of the Zohar. Elements 
of the Zohar. Translations of the Zohar. 


INDEX 


XII 


PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION 


It would be presumption on my part were I to follow the 
example of the German translator and write a lengthy preface 
on the merits of this book. It would be but a poor imitation, 
at best. Any one willing to take the trouble to study the 
biography of the author and his German translator will admit 
that the devotion to impassionate philosophy of the one and the 
intimate acquaintance with Talmudic lore and Jewish Religious 
Philosophy of the other justly grant them undisputed authority 
to speak on the subject treated of in this work, and entitle them 
to a respectful hearing by all those desiring an unalloyed exposition 
of the Kabbalah. I lay claim to none of these qualifications, 
and will therefore confine my remarks to the make-up of this 
translation. 

My efforts have been directed primarily to a popularization 
of the subject treated here, and I have therefore avoided, as 
much as possible, any complicated phrases or obscure expressions 
often met with in works treating subjects of this or similar 
nature. My notes are rather of an explanatory nature and tend 
to enlighten the reader on some points he may not be familiar 
with. At times, though, I was compelled to take the part of 
a critic; especially where I met with discrepancies between the 
French original and the German translation. In such cases I 
was naturally compelled to look for arbitration in the original 
sources, and I had to venture my own opinion at times when 
neither the translation of the author nor that of the German 


Xill 


translator seemed to render the true meaning of the original 
Hebrew or Aramaic text (as, for example, note 15 and note 46 
in Part II, Chap. III). 

I have translated all the notes made by Dr. Jellinek, and 
followed his example in omitting the translation of the Appendix. 
His reason for doing so seems to me to be justified. There are 
English translations of these extracts, and, besides, such diatribes 
do not contribute to the knowledge of and enlightenment on the 
Kabbalah with which this work is concerned. I have added, 
instead, an Appendix by Dr. Jellinek on the ‘Bibliographical 
Notices on the Zohar” which, I am sure, will amply repay the 
reader for my omission of the Appendix of the French text. I 
have also added an Index for the convenience of those readers 
who may wish to use this book as a reference. 

For any inaccuracies and mistakes which may have crept into 
this translation I ask the indulgence of the kind reader and 
critic, and I shall ever be thankful for any corrections offered in 
good faith. The task of translating was to me by no means an 
easy one; for the work developed mostly during the minutes 
snatched from an often busy practice, and during the hours usually 
assigned to physical and mental rest—from midnight to dawn. 


New York, May, 1926. I. Sossnitz. 


XIV 


PREFACE TO THE GERMAN TRANSLATION OF 
THE FIRST FRENCH EDITION 


By 


ADOLPH JELLINEK 


None of the gnostic systems has so often been compelled, under 
the hands of the critics, to change its birthplace as the so-called 
Kabbalah; no monument of Oriental Philosophy! has called 
forth such conflicting hypotheses as to the time and place of its 
composition, as the universal code of the Kabbalists, the Zohar; 
finally, no writer of the history of philosophy has until now 
undertaken to translate the picturesque, metaphorical language 
of Jewish gnosis into the reasoning mode of expression of abstract 
thinking. 

I shall leave out of consideration the great array of Jewish 
and Christian disciples of the Kabbalistic system; it is too 
strongly dominated by the essential mysticism that prevails in all 
parts of the Kabbalistic system, to be able to reach the necessary 
sobermindedness. The opinion of a Pico de la Mirandola, of a 
Reuchlin, has as much critical value as that of an ordinary 


1 This term introduced by Mosheim is still to be put forward in the 
investigations of gnosticism, “for’—as Baur (the Christian Gnosis, p. 4) 
justly remarks—‘“the very name is to express at once the demand to 
place oneself in an entirely new and peculiar atmosphere, and to make 
use of an entirely different gauge than the usual one of our critical 
reason and phantasy for the speculations that present themselves here.” 
This viewpoint of orientalism should generally be adhered to in religious 
philosophy. 


XV 


Zoharist or of a Hassid; the presumptive higher illumination does 
not permit the intellect to come to its senses. 

Those critics who stand outside the sanctum of the Kabbalah 
have, indeed, brought to light wonderful conjectures bearing on 
the age and the origin of the same. Some (Buddeus, Kleuker, 
Osiander) set the Kabbalah in the age of the patriarchs, and let 
it march, side by side with the Mosaic teachings, on the road of 
oral tradition as an esoteric teaching, a Secret Doctrine. ‘The 
Talmudic tradition (m5 Sysw nin) claims no less, indeed, for 
itself; it is maintained that this, too, is an oral part of the divine 
revelation descended from Moses (compare Maimonides, Intro- 
duction into the Mishnah). Yet, this tradition which bears only 
on the material, sensual side of the Law, could never have 
paved its way to the people, were it not sanctioned by descent and 
religious national custom. 

Others, (Basnage, Brucker) believed they had found the 
cradle of the Kabbalah in Egypt. ‘This opinion is, as it were, a 
continuation of the one which holds that the Mosaic Law and 
Mosaic Doctrine is a property pilfered from the Egyptian 
priesthood. Richard Simon and Berger let the founders of the 
Jewish gnosis, in company with the Greek creators of the doctrine 
of Numbers and Ideas, be schooled by the Chaldeans; Wachter, 
Joachim Lang and Wolf (author of Bibliotheca Hebraea) looked 
for the source of the Kabbalah in Pagan philosophy. Yet, these 
opinions lack a definite historic foundation, and have justly been 
rejected by the author of this work. (Compare Tholuck, “de 
Ortu Cabbalae,” p. 3-4.) 

In company with another author of a French work (Matter, 
“Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme”) Franck defends the view 
that the Kabbalistic science evolved from the theology of the 
Parsees.2 Against this opinion Gieseler (in the review of Matter’s 


2 Though Mr. Franck agrees with Matter in the turning point of 
the investigation—in the pre-Christian, Zoroastrian origin of the 
Kabbalistic philosophy—yet there prevails the great difference between 
them in that, while the latter considers the relation of the Kabbalah 


XV 


work, theologic studies and criticisms, year 1830, I, 381-383) 
made some objections referred to also by Baur (p. 70). 
“Although,” says Gieseler, ‘we fully recognize the proven influence 
of Parseeism upon Judaism, yet we would not explain it by any 
syncretic inclination of the latter, in so far as syncretism refers 
to an external union of materials innerly strange to one another. 
Never, indeed, were the Israelite people further away from mixing 
strange opinions with their religious belief, nor of recognizing any 
relationship to any other religion, like the Persian for instance, 
as just since the exile. The influence of the Persian system upon 
the Jews consisted in that it induced them to a development of 
analogous seeds resting in their doctrine by representing itself 
to them as a complete system in some points; at which the 
Persian doctrine development, unknown to them, surely helped to 
influence as a pattern. It is always the more developed doctrinal 
system which acts upon the less developed one, even when the 
latter places itself to the former in the most decided contrast... . 
We first take side with Massuet against Buddeus by denying the 
pre-Christian origin of the Kabbalistic philosophy. The exegetic 
quibblings which developed later into the so-called Kabbalah 
Symbolica are older, it is true; but we are obliged to doubt that 
the philosophic system of the Kabbalists originated from such early 
times, because neither Josephus nor Philo mention it, because the 
system of Philo relates to the Kabbalistic system evidently as the 
earlier to the later, and because the historical traces of the 
Kabbalah are so very young. Accordingly, we can not consider 
the Kabbalah (which, by the way, does not seem to us of such 
close relationship to the Zoroastrian system) as a source of the 
Christian gnosis.” 

It is indisputable that the Jews resisted the invasion of 
strange opinions into their religious belief, especially since the 


to the Zoroastrian system as that of a copy to the original (la Kabballe 
se montre auprés du Zoroastrisme comme la copie auprés de I’original), 
the first one proves the great advance of the Kabbalah on Zoroastrism. 
Besides, the mode of investigation of our author is quite a different one. 


XVIl 


exild; yet, it can be proven to the contrary, that they looked for 
and found in the Bible every wisdom otherwise unknown to them 
or not indicated therein by clear words. Philo endeavored to 
prove in the Scriptures the wisdom of all peoples; the Talmudists 
(R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua ben Hananiah, R. Johanan in the name 
of R. Simeon ben Yohai, R. Meir, R. Joshua son of Levi, R. 
Chiya son of Aba in the name of R. Johanan, Mar Sutra, Rabbina, 
R. Ashii—See Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Sanhedrin, last chap.) 
demonstrated the resurrection from the Bible; the entire line of 
Jewish religious philosophers, from Saadia the Fayumite to Dr. 
Hirsch of Luxembourg, have piled upon the Bible strange elements 
in the endeavor to view it in the light of the prevailing philosophy 
of the times. | 

The influence of the Persian system upon the Jews must 
appear further on more powerful than any other. With the first 
cessation of political independence of the Jewish state, with the 
first exile, the Jewish spirit awakened; doubts arose, problems 
were created, the solution was attempted. “The most important 
questions of the “when” and “how” of the genesis of beings, of 
the destiny of the universe were not satisfactorily answered by 
the simplicity of the Mosaic records; on the other hand, though, 
they clung still closer to the old belief. A new change of ideas 
took place in Babylon; every conflict with previous conceptions 
could be avoided by the use of the Kabbalah Symbolica. And 
what doctrine could better be brought in accord with the Mosaic 
tradition than the Persian? Johannsen (the Cosmogenic Views 
of the Hindoos and Hebrews, Altona, 1833) was really in earnest 
when he represented the Mosaic cosmogony as a system of 
emanation! ‘The Hindoo designation of God before the creation 
of the world by svajambhu and tad, as given by Johannsen, p. 10, 
is, in fact, found with the Kabbalists in the explanation of the 
MANX IWR max — I Am that I Am. 

The Kabbalist—to retain this term—had to shrink from the 
new and dangerous ideas easily exposed to misinterpretation, and 


XVIll 


which underwent considerable modifications at his hands and 
under the influence of Judaism; and it is only natural that the 
Kabbalistic doctrine, just because it is so similar to the Persian, 
should have become a secret instruction, did not press itself 
forward, and was known to only a few during its first stage. 
It originated gradually, however, and stayed free of the Greek 
elements that influenced Philo. With reference to the not very 
clear relationship of the Kabbalah to Parseeism, this counts as a 
merit of the Kabbalistic system; the Kabbalah is not a copy of 
Zoroastrism—as Mr. Matter maintains—but rather an evolution 
of the latter connected with various modifications. 

The question of the origin and age of the Kabbalah is most 
closely connected with the inquiry as to the time and place of 
the composition of the Zohar. This question does not seem to 
us to have been sufficiently answered. “The Zohar, in its entire 
range, contains no less than an uniform system;* repetitions are 
often found there; passages are met with which have been 
borrowed from the Talmud and Midrash; the language is of 
various coloring ;* and because the system developed gradually, 
there must of necessity be found therein graduations. From the 
Zohar, then, we are to be shown what doctrines formed its original 
elements; how it developed under the hands of various teachers; 
what elements of other writings are found therein; in short, a 
criticism of the entire Zohar according to its individual passages 
would have to be given. This we shall attempt in a future work: 


“The Composition of the Zohar.” (Unpublished—Transl.) 


3 Thus we find on the very first page of the Zohar—according to the 
Sulzbach edition and generally all those bearing the name of 9133. 1m—- 
traces of the Hindoo cosmogony which, though, have been modified by the 
author through the influence of Judaism. In explaining the creation, it 
speaks there of the “seed” (2 YOST RVIP NWN Pin WIR PrN) 
which is immediately modified by transmutation in the “letters.” 
A921) TNR IR RYIT RTT TN) 


4 It is noteworthy that in the old passages the Jerusalemean ¥&)°x12 
appears for the Babylonian x3>3w. Comp. Nedarim, 66b; Fuerst, “Lehrge- 
baeude der aramaeischen Idiome,” p. 17. 


X1X 


I have now to say something about this work, my translation, 
correction and addition. 

The source from which the historical writers of philosophy 
have until now drawn their knowledge of the Kabbalistic system, 
is Knorr v. Rosenroth’s ‘““Kabbala Denudata;” ‘from this rich 
and voluminous work, though’—as Molitor (The Philosophy 
of History, II, 9) judges—“the reader will get only a hazy 
inkling but not a clear and distinct conception of the Kabbalah.” 
The real philosophic value of the Kabbalah is, on the whole, 
neglected in Rosenroth’s work. Mboliter’s erudite work, 
“Philosophy of History or on the Tradition,” does not contain, 
as yet, in the three volumes which have appeared at this writing, 
an objective representation of the Kabbalistic system. “The author 
himself says (II, 12) that “for the present the whole should be 
considered merely as a free philosophic attempt,’ and promises to 
develop the Kabbalah with the Kabbalists’ own words in the 
fifth volume. 


Besides, an impartial representation is hardly to be expected 
from Moliter, who “studio disciplinae Judaeorum arcanae ipse 
prorsus factus est Judaeus Cabbalisticus—himself became a Jewish 
Kabbalist through the study of the ancient doctrine of the Jews” 
(Tholuck, p. 4), and who had great faith in the younger Kabbalis- 
tic works and commentaries. “The work of Mr. Franck, where 
the Kabbalah is developed impartially and commensurate with our 
times, from the oldest fragments of the Zohar, must be welcome 
to the writer of the history of philosophy and to all those who 
want to know the philosophy of the Kabbalah. The investigation 
on the age of the Kabbalah, the authenticity of the Kabbalistic 
main works, as well as the investigation on the relationship of 
the Kabbalistic system to other systems of philosophy and religion, 
is also given here for the first time in detail and complete. 


In the translation of the French original I have endeavored 
to render its contents faithfully. The translated passages from 
the Sefer Yetzirah, the Zohar and the Talmud and the new- 


XX 


hebraic works I have always compared with the originals. The 
Spanish quotations from Jacob Abendana’s translation of the Cuzari 
by Judah-ha-Levi, as well as the appendix, have been omitted; 
the first ones are of no use to the German reader, the latter 
contains only a translation of Solomon Maimon’s report on the 
sect of the Hassidim (see Maimon’s biography, part I, ch. 19) and 
Peter Baer’s representation of the Zoharites (Peter Baer, History, 
Doctrines and Opinions of all past and present religious sects of 
the Jews and of the Secret Doctrine or Kabbalah II, 309 ff.). 

The correction referred to, I would rather call an outward 
one. The quotations from the Kabbalistic works were so corrupt,® 
the reference to page numbers full of mistakes (at times absent 
altogether), the annotations were so often misplaced,® that I was 
compelled to spend much time upon correction. Believe me, it 
is only necessary to look at the folio volume of the Zohar, edition 
Sulzbach, to see that it is no small trouble and loss of time to 
look there for a given passage. 

Yet, in carefully comparing the translation with the original, 
other corrections will be found which I have not expressly 
indicated by a footnote. ‘Thus, for example, there is nothing 
more contrary to the spirit of Kabbalism than to translate yn x 
with “Law” (loi). To the allegoric method of the Kabbalah 
even the Law is so familiar as to lose its inherent rigidity. 

The annotations and the appendix make up the addition. For 
the completion of the “Biographic Notes on the Zohar’ I have 
made use, besides the Kabbalah Denudata, also of “Die 
Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden” (Devotional Sermons of 
the Jews) by Zunz, the book 7:54 by Milsahagi, and the seventh 
volume of the new-Hebrew annual 4yp o45. The representation 
of the so-called Kabbalistic tree was also added first to the 
translation. 


May 20th, 1844. Ap. JELLINEK. 


5 Compare only for example p. 155, note I, of the French original. 
6 P, 142, note ** is to be struck and part of note 3 must refer to 
p. 143. 


XXI 


FOREWORD TO THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION 
FRANCK 


It is almost half a century, in 1843, since this book saw the 
light for the first time. It is nearly as long since it was introduced 
into public and private libraries. ‘This public eagerness to take 
notice of a metaphysical and religious work could but astonish us; 
it is explainable by the subject covered therein and by the very 
name of the Kabbalah. Since that time, long past, I have often 
been requested, in and out of France, to publish a second edition 
of my volume of 1843. For several reasons I refused to satisfy 
this desire. Compelled by circumstances, as professor of physical 
and international law, at the College of France, to devote all my 
activity to studies which are of general interest, it was difficult 
for me to return to a subject of research which did not seem to 
me to respond any more to the spirit of the times. “Then again, 
I would have been obliged, because of the nature of the objections 
raised, to relegate to second place that which makes up the merit 
and charm of the Kabbalah, that is to say, the philosophic and 
religious system it contains, in order to discuss first certain 
bibliographical and chronological questions. I lacked the courage 
and did not consider it useful to impose upon myself this sacrifice. 

The situation is quite different now. Disgusted with 
positivistic, evolutionistic and brutally atheistic doctrines which 
dominate our countries to-day, and which seek to domineer not 
alone science but society as well, many minds have turned to the 
Orient, the cradle of religions and the primitive fatherland of 


XXil 


mystic ideas; and among the doctrines which they endeavor to 
restore to honor, the Kabbalah is not forgotten. I shall give 
several proofs. 


We must know that under the name of the Theosophical 
Society, there exists a vast organization which, coming from 
India, passed to America and Europe, sending out vigorous rami- 
fications into the United States, England, and France. ‘This 
association is not left to chance; it has its hierarchy, its organiza- 
tion, its literature, its reviews and its journals. The principal 
organ in France is the Lotus. ‘This is a periodical publication of 
very great interest, which borrowed from Buddhism the founda- 
tion of ideas, making no pretense to bind to them the minds by 
forbidding new researches and attempts at changes. Upon this 
Buddhistic foundation are often developed speculations and textual 
quotations borrowed from the Kabbalah. 


There is even a branch of the Theosophic Society, a French 
branch by the name of Isis, which published during the last year 
a previously unpublished translation of the Sefer Yetzirah, one 
of the two Kabbalistic books considered the oldest and most 
important. What gives merit to this translation, or, above all, 
what makes valuable the commentaries that accompany it, I do 
not consider it my duty to examine here. I will only say, in 
order to-give an idea of the thought that inspired the author of 
‘this work, that, according to him, “the Kabbalah is the only 
religion from which all other cults emanated.” (Preface, p. 4.) 

Another Review, also consecrated to theosophical propaganda, 
and in which necessarily the Kabbalah occurs often is the one 
which was founded, and which is managed and edited, for the 
most part, by Lady Caithness, Duchess of Pomar. Its name is 
the same as the one given by the great German theosophist Jacob 
Boehm to his first work—‘“The Dawn.” The purpose of the 
Dawn is not entirely the same as that of the Lotus. Buddhism 
does not hold there first rank to the detriment of Christianity; 
but with the aid of an esoteric interpretation of sacred texts, 


XXIll 


the two religions are brought in accord and presented as the 
common source of all other religions. “This esoteric interpretation 
is surely one of the principal elements of the Kabbalah; but this 
also is made to contribute in a direct manner, under the name 
of Semitic Theosophy. I do not undertake to guarantee the 
correctness with which it is expounded. I limit myself to point 
out the lively preoccupation of which it is the object in the very 
curious work of the Duchess of Pomar. 


Why not speak also of the Magazine Initiation, although it 
is no more than four months in existence? “The very name 
Initiation tells us a great deal, it puts us upon the threshhold of a 
good many sanctuaries closed to the profane; and this young 
Review, which, in fact, bears upon its cover the title ‘“Philosophic 
and Independent Review of the Higher Studies,” is dedicated 
exclusively to science, or, at least to matters of research, to 
subjects of curiosity and conjectures, suspected most in the eyes 
of established science and even in the eyes of that public opinion 
which passes as an organ of common sense. Among these figure, 
in a general manner, Theosophy, Occult Sciences, Hypnotism, 
Freemasonry, Alchemy, Astrology, Animal Magnetism, Physiog- 
nomy, Spiritualism, etc., etc. 


Wherever the subject of Theosophy springs up, one is sure to 
see the Kabbalah appear. The Initiation does not fail to obey this 
law. The Kabbalah, “the Sacred Kabbalah,” as she calls it, is 
dear to her. She appeals often to its authority; but one notices, 
particularly in its second number, an article from the pen of Mr. 
René Caillé, on the “Kingdom of God” by Albert Jouney, where 
the doctrine of the Zohar, the most important of the two 
Kabbalistic works, serves as basis to a Christian Kabbalah formed 
from the ideas of St. Martin, styled the “Unknown Philosopher,” 
the unconscious renovator of the doctrine of Origenes. That 
which Abbot Roca proposes in one of the first numbers of the 
Lotus is also a Christian Kabbalah. 


I shall be permitted also not to pass entirely in silence the 


XXIV 


Swedenborgian journals which appeared lately in and out of 
France, especially the ‘‘General Philosophy of the Students of 
Swedenborg’s Books.”! But the Church of Swedenborg, or the 
“New Jerusalem,” although represented by its adepts as one of 
the most important forms of Theosophy, can surely not join the 
Kabbalah simply because it leans upon an esoteric interpretation 
of sacred books. The results of this interpretation and the personal 
visions of the Swedish prophet resemble but little, barring a few 
exceptions, the teachings contained in the Kabbalistic books—the 
Zohar and the Sefer Yetzirah. I shall rather stop to consider a 
recent work of great erudition, a doctor’s thesis presented not 
long ago to the Faculty of Sciences of Paris, which did not receive 
the measure of attention of which it is worthy: ‘“‘Essay on 
Egyptian Gnosticism, its development and its Egyptian origin,” 
by M. E. Amélineau (Paris, 1887). 

This dissertation, written for an entirely different purpose, 
demolishes entirely the criticism which sees in the Kabbalah 
nothing but fraud hatched in the head of some obscure rabbi of 
the thirteenth century and continued after him by unintelligent 
and unscientific imitators. 

Amélineau discovers for us in the fathers of gnosticism, who 
were absolutely unknown in the thirteenth century, mainly in 
Saturninus and Valentin, a system of theogony and of cosmogony 
identical to the one of the Zohar; and not only are the ideas alike, 
but the symbolical form of language and the manner of argumen- 
tation are also the same.” 

In the same year in which Mr. Amélineau, by his doctor’s 
thesis, delivered at Sarbonne, avenged the Zohar from the attacks 
delivered against it by the skepticism of our times, another German 
scholar, Mr. Epstein, restored to the Sefer Yetzirah, also a target 
for the objections of modern criticism, a part at least of its great 
antiquity. Although he does not permit it to go back to Akkiba, 


: Published by Villot, 22 rue de Boisey, Taverny (Sein-et-Oisee). 
2 I have cited several examples in the Journal of Scholars, April 
and May numbers, 1888. 


XXV 


and still less to the patriarch Abraham, he establishes, at least, 
through decisive reasoning, that it is not any later than the fourth 
century of our era. 

This is something already. But I do not doubt, that by paying 
more attention to the depth rather than the form of the book, and 
by searching for analogies in the most ancient products of 
gnosticism, it will be possible to go back still further. Do not 
numbers and letters to which the entire system of the Sefer 
Yetzirah is traceable, play just as great a role in Pythagorism as 
in the first system of India? It is the rage nowadays to rejuvenate 
everything, as though the spirit of the system, and, above all, the 
mystic spirit were not just as old as the world and will not 
last as long as human mind will last. 

Here, then, we have reason to believe that the interest found 
in the Kabbalah during so many centuries, in Christianity as 
well as in Judaism, in the researches of Philosophy as well as in 
the speculations of Theology, is far from being exhausted, and 
that I am not entirely wrong in republishing a work which may 
serve to make it known. After all, if it only answers the wish 
of a few curious ones, it will suffice to dispute the right to count 
it among books entirely useless. 


Paris, April 9th, 1889. A. FRANCK. 


3 Epstein, M’kadmonios Ha-Y’udim, Beitraege zur Geschichte 
Juedischer Alterthumskunde, Vienna, 1887. 


XXxV1 


PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR 


A doctrine with more than one point of resemblance to the 
doctrine of Plato and Spinoza; a doctrine which in its form rises 
at times to the majestic tone of religious poetry; a doctrine born 
in the same land, and almost at the same time, as Christianity; 
a doctrine which developed and spread during a period of more 
than twelve centuries in the shadow of the most profound mystery, 
without any supporting evidence other than the testimony of a 
presumptive ancient tradition, and with no apparent motive than 
the desire to penetrate more intimately into the meaning of the 
Sacred Books—such is the doctrine found in the original writings 
and in the oldest fragments of the Kabbalah! when shifted and 
purified of all their dross. 

It occurred to me that, at a time, when all historical 
researches, and the history of philosophy in particular, have 


1 The Hebrew word no2p (Kabbalah), as its root 2p indicates, 
expresses the action of receiving: a doctrine received by tradition. ‘The 
word Masorah (71D) designates the action of transmitting; a doctrine 
transmitted by tradition. The orthography herein used has been used 
in Germany a long time (Kabbalah instead of Cabbala). It seems the 
orthography best fitted to the pronounciation of the Hebrew term, and 
it is the orthography recommended as most exact by Raymond Lullus in 
his book “de Auditu Kabbalistico.”12 

la The possible reason that the Kabbalists preferred to call their 
doctrine 7°12? (acceptio) and not n11DD (traditio)—-compare Peter Beer: 
Geschichte, Lehren und Meinungen aller bestandenen und noch bestehen- 
den religioesen Secten der Juden u. s. w. Vol. II, p. 4—may be found in 
their desire to avoid a name in which the term “teaching” is especially 
conspicuous; for the secret doctrine was to be imparted only to the pious 
who has been well tried and who has attained full manhood.—Jellinek. 


XXVil 


acquired so much importance; at a time when the belief is 
prevalent that the human mind may reveal itself in its entirety 
only in the totality of its works—that such a subject, considered 
from a viewpoint far above every sect or party spirit, may justly 
lay claim to participation. That even the difficulties which 
surround such a subject, and the obscurity offered in its ideas 
as well as in its language, may promise indulgence to one daring 
to treat it. 

But this is not the only reason why the Kabbalah recommends 
itself to the attention of serious minds. It should be remembered 
that from the beginning of the sixteenth century until the middle 
of the seventeenth century, it exercised a considerable influence 
over theology, philosophy, natural science and medicine. It was 
the spirit of the Kabbalah which inspired a Pico de la Mirandola, 
a Cornelius Agrippa, a Reuchlin, a Paracelsus, a Henry Morus, 
a Robert Fludd, a Van Helmont, and even a Jacob Boehm, the 
greatest of all those who went astray in searching for an universal 
science, one science that would take upon itself to show us the 
very essence of the connection of all things in the very depths of 
divine nature. Less bold than a modern critic soon to be 
mentioned, I dare not now pronounce the name of Spinoza. 


I do not pretend to have discovered an entirely unknown land. 
On the contrary, I must say that years will be required for a 
review of all that has been written concerning the Kabbalah, if 
it were only from the moment when the press first bared its 
secrets. But what contradictory opinions, what impassioned 
judgments, what fantastical hypotheses, and, taking it all together, 
what inassimilable chaos in that mass of Hebrew, Latin and 
German books published under all forms, and furrowed by cita- 
tions in all languages! And mark well, that the discord shows 
itself not only in the appreciations of the doctrines to be made 
known, or in the so very complicated problem of their origin, but 
presents itself in no less a conspicuous manner in the very exposi- 
tion of the doctrines. For that reason the more modern way of 


XXVIli 


studying the matter is not to be considered useless if it bases its 
work upon original documents, upon the best accredited traditions, 
and upon the most authentic texts; and, if at the same time, it 
embraces all that is good and true in previous researches. 

But before entering upon this plan of research, I deem it 
necessary to set before the reader a rapid review of the works 
which gave rise to this original idea, and which, in some measure, 
contain the elements of this work. It will thus be possible to have 
a more correct idea of how far science succeeded with this 
mysterious subject, and of what nature is the task endowed upon 
us by our predecessors. “To accomplish that task is the aim of 
this preface. 

I shall not speak of the considerable number of modern 
Kabbalists who wrote in Hebrew. Individually, their distinguish- 
ing features are of so little importance, and, save for a few 
exceptions, they penetrate so little into the depths of the system, 
that it would be very difficult and equally tedious to mention 
each one separately. Suffice it to know that they divide them- 
selves into two schools, both founded in Palestine at about the 
same time, the middle of the sixteenth century. One was founded 
by Moses Corduero,? the other by Isaac Luria® who was regarded 
by a few Jews as the forerunner of Messiah. 

Notwithstanding the superstitious veneration which these two 
instilled into their students, both were but commentators who 
lacked the gift of originality. Corduero, at least, kept close to 
the meaning of the original writings, although not entering deeply 


2 In Hebrew the name is WW NIT11) AWM "5%, and perhaps the 
pronounciation should be Cordovero. Of Spanish origin, he flourished 
toward the middle of the sixteenth century, in Sephath, in Lower 
Galilee.* His principal work was the “Garden of Pomegranites” 
(093197 DIB) published in Cracow. His little treatise on Mystic Ethics, 
“Deborah’s Palm Tree” (57123 19n), was published in Mantua in 1623. 

* More correctly in Upper Galilee.—Jellinek. 

3 In Hebrew Luria’s name was ‘t)2¥8% pny’ ' or, abbreviated 
VORA, He also died in Sephath in 1572. Apart from detached 
treatises which show no proof of authenticity, he published nothing 
more. But his disciple, Chaim Vital, collected all his opinions into one 
system and embodied them under the title on ry, 


Xx1X 


into their spirit; while Luria almost always deviated from the 
true text in order to give free rein to his reveries which, in 
reality, were dreams of a diseased mind—aegri somnia vana. I 
need not say which of the two I have consulted most frequently ; 
but I can not refrain from remarking that the prevailing opinion 
places more importance with the latter. 

I shall set aside those writers who made but a passing mention 
of the Kabbalah; writers like Richard Simon,* Burnet (Archaeol- 
ogic Philosoph. ch. 4) and Huttingen;® or those who, confining 
their researches to biography, bibliography and history proper, do 
no more than indicate the sources where to look, as, for instance, 
to Wolf,® to Basnage,’ and to Bartolocci;® in a word, to writers 
who are content to sum up, sometimes to repeat what others have 
said. To the latter class belong, as far as our subject is concerned, 
the authors of the “Introduction to the Philosophy of the 
Hebrews,’® and the modern historians of philosophy who more 
or less, copied Brucker, as Brucker himself put under contribution 
the more neo-platonic and Arabic than the Kabbalistic dissertations 
of the Spanish rabbi Abraham Cohen Herrera.!® After all these 
eliminations I have still to put forth prominently a number of 
authors who have made a more serious study of the esoteric 
doctrine of the Hebrews, or to whom we must at least accord 
the credit of having drawn that doctrine from the profound 
obscurity where it had remained hidden until the close of the 
fifteenth century. 


4 Critical History of the Old Testament, tome I, ch. 7. 

: 5 Thes. philolog. and in other writings—Discursus gemaricus de 
imcestu, etc. 

6 Bibliotheca Hebraica, Hamb., 1721. 4 vols. 4 to. 

7 Histoire des Juifs, Paris and the Hague. 

8 Magna Bibliotheca Rabbinica. 4 vols. fol. 

9 J. F. Buddeus, Introductio ad Historiam philosophiae Hebraeorum, 
Halle," 1702 vand: 1721., i8/,Vo; 

10 Yerira or Herera, belonged to the seventeenth century. His 
chief work, “Porta Coelorum” (the Gate of the Heavens) was composed 
in Spanish, his mother tongue, and translated first into Hebrew then into 
Latin by the author of the Kabbalah denudata. (This will be spoken 
of further on in this book.) 


XXX 


The first who revealed to Christian Europe the name and the 
existence of the Kabbalah, was a man who, despite the deviations 
of his ardent imagination, despite the dashing ardor of his 
enthusiastic mind, and perhaps even because of the force of these 
brilliant defects, gave vigorous impulsion to the ideas of his 
century, we mean—Raymond Lullus (Raimundus Lullus). It 
would be difficult to say just how far Raymond Lullus was initiated 
in this mysterious science, and what influence it exercised over 
his own doctrines. 

Under no consideration will I affirm with a historian of 
philosophy? that Raymond Lullus drew from this science the 
identity of God and Nature. That much is certain, though, that 
he had a lofty idea of the Kabbalah, and that he regarded it as 
a divine science and as a true revelation, whose light shone for 
the illumination of the rational soul;!* and it is permitted to 
suppose that the artificial methods used by the Kabbalists to link 
their opinions with the words of the Holy Writ, and their frequent 
use of the substitution of numbers and letters for ideas and for 
words, contributed a great deal to the invention of the Great 
Art (Ars Magna). It is worthy of note that Raymond Lullus 
has already made the distinction between ancient and modern 
Kabbalists more than two and a half centuries before the existence 
of the two contending schools of Luria and Cordovera, the period 
to which some modern critics wished to ascribe the birth of the 
entire Kabbalistic science.1% 

The example given by the Majorcan philosopher remained 
unimitated for a long time; for after him the study of Kabbalah 
was forgotten until the time when Pico de la Mirandola and 


11 Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. VIII, p. 837. 

12 Picitur haec doctrina Kabbala quod idem est secundum Hebraeos 
ut receptio veritatis cujus libet rei divinitis revelatae animae rationali... 
Est igitur Kabbala habitus anima rationalis ex recta ratione divinarum 
rerum cognitivus; proper quod est de maximo etiam divino consequutive 
divina scientia vocari debet.—“De Auditu Kabbalistico, sive ad omnes 
scientias introductorium.” Strasburg, 1651. 

13 Tbid, as above. The opinion here mentioned will be fully dis- 
cussed further on, in Part I of this book. 


XXX1 


Reuchlin came to throw light again upon a science which, save to 
a circle of adepts, was until then known only by name and 
existence. ‘These two men, who were equally admired by their 
century, for the boldness of their minds and for their extensive 
learning, were yet very far from entering into all the depths and 
into all the difficulties of the subject. 

Pico de la Mirandola made efforts to reduce to a few proposi- 
tions!4—the sources of which he does not indicate and between 
which a connection can hardly be found—a system just as 
extensive, just as many sided and just as strongly built as the 
one which is the subject of our investigations. It is true that 
these propositions were originally intended for public discussion 
and for development by argumentation; but in the state in which 
they reached us they are unintelligible, not only because of their 
brevity, but also because of their isolation; and it is surely not 
in a few far-fetched digressions, scattered haphazardly through 
works of the most diverse character, that one would hope to find 
the unity, the development or the proofs of truth which we have 
a right to demand from a work of such importance. 

The other one was not carried so far away by his imagination; 
he was more systematic and more lucid, but he was less learned 
and, unfortunately, had not the gift of drawing from the richest 
sources which were most worthy of his confidence. No more 
than the Italian author who, though born after him, was in 
advance of him on this road,!° did Reuchlin cite his authorities; 
but it is easy to recognize in him the scant critical spirit of Joseph 
of Castile® and not of the spurious Abraham ben Dior,}? a 


14 Conclusiones cabalisticae, numero XLVII, secundum secretam 
doctrinam sapientium Hebraeorum, etc. Vol. I, p. 54 of his works, 
Basle edition. ‘They were first published at Rome in 1486. 

15 Reuchlin was born in 1455; Juan Pico de la Mirandola in 1465. 

16 In Hebrew x5°)p13 4D, Joseph ben Abraham Gikatiila. He 
was the author of a book entitled: “The Gate of Light” 18% yw 
which Paul Ricci translated into Latin and which Reuchlin apparently 
took as basis for his “de Verbo Mirifico.” 

17 He is known under the name of 1’2x 1 (RABD), ie., Rabbi 
Abraham ben David, or ben Dior. His commentary on the Sefer 


XXXII 


commentator of the fourteenth century, who mingled Aristotelian: 
ideas and all that he knew of the Greek traditions as interpreted 
by the Arabians, with his Kabbalistic knowledge. Besides, the 
dramatic form adapted by Reuchlin is neither precise nor serious 
enough for such a subject; and it is not without vexation that one 
sees him graze the most important questions in order to establish, 
by means of a few indefinite analogies, an imaginary affiliation 
between the Kabbalah and the doctrine of Pythagoras. 


Reuchlin contended that the founder of the Italian school 
was a disciple of the Kabbalists, to whom he owed not only the 
foundation but also the symbolical form of his system as well as 
the traditional character of his teachings. Whence arise those 
subtleties and perversions which equally disfigure the two orders. 
of ideas that one endeavors to mingle. Of the two works which 
have established Reuchlin’s fame, only one, ‘de Arte Cabbalistica’”’ 
(published in Hagenau, 1517, fol.), contains an ordered exposition 
of the esoteric doctrine of the Hebrews; the other, (“de Verbo. 
Mirifico”) which, in fact, was the first published,!8 is only an 


Yetzirah (in Hebrew) was printed with the text at Mantua in 1562, 
and at Amsterdam in 1642. Because of the likeness in names, ben 
Dior was for a long time confounded with another widely known 
Kabbalist, who died at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and who 
was the teacher of Moses de Leon, to whom it was attempted to attribute 
the compilation of the Zohar. (See Geiger’s “Scientific Journal for 
Jewish Theology,” Vol. II, p. 312.) 

18 Published in Basle in 1494, fol. As this work is extremely rare 
and of great interest to the history of Mysticism, I feel obliged to give 
here a summary idea of its contents. Like “de Arte Cabbalistica” it is 
in the form of a dialogue carried on by three persons: an epicurean 
philosopher named Sidonius, a Jew named Baruch, and the author 
himself, who translated his German name by the Greek word Capnio. 
The dialogue is divided in as many books as persons. The first book, 
devoted to a refutation of the Epicurean philosophy, is nothing more than 
a simple reproduction of the arguments generally used against that 
system. We shall not linger here any longer. 

The second book aims to establish that all wisdom and all true 
philosophy came from the Hebrews; that Plato, Pythagoras and Zoroaster 
have drawn their religious ideas from the Bible, and that traces of the 
Hebrew language are found in the liturgy and in the sacred books of all 
other nations. The author finally arrives at the explanation of the 
different names of God. The first, the most celebrated of all, the ego. 


XXXIll 


sum qui sum, (the. 4g | Am that I Am” AN), is translated in Plato’s 
philosophy by tO OvtMs dv. The second name, the one we translate 
by He (81), i.e., the sign of the immutability of God and of His eternal 
identity, is found also in the Greek philosophy, in the dategdv as 
opposed to tavtov. 

In the Sacred Scriptures God is called by still another name, a 
third name—Fire (Wx); and, in point of fact, was it not in the form of a 
burning bush that God first appeared to Moses on Mount Hereb? Is it 
not He whom the prophets called the devouring fire? And again, is it 
not He of whom John the Baptist spoke when he said “I baptize you 
with water, but the one who cometh after me shall baptize you with 
fire’? (Matthew III, 11). The fire of the Hebrew prophets is identical 
with the Ether (ai?je) spoken of in the hymns of Orpheus. But all 
these names given to God are, in reality, but one name, which shows 
us the divine substance under three different aspects. 

Thus, God is called the Existence because all existence emanates 
from Him. He calls Himself Fire, because it is He who illumines and 
vivifies all things. Finally He is always He, because He eternally 
remains like Himself amidst the infinite varieties of His works. As 
there are names which express the substance of God, so there are names 
which relate to His attributes, and of such are the ten Sefiroth or 
Kabbalistic categories to be mentioned frequently in this book. But 
when abstraction is made of all the attributes of God, and even of every 
definite point of view under which the divine substance can be con- 
sidered; when an effort is made to represent the Absolute Being as 
retired within Himself, showing no definable relation to our intelligence, 
then He is designated by the name to pronounce which is forbidden— 
by the thrice holy Tetragrammaton that is to say by the word Jehovah 
(waypon ow—Shem Ha-mforesh.) 

There can be no doubt that the Tetractys of Pythagoras is an 
imitation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, or that the cult of the Dekas 
was invented in honor of the ten Sefiroth. It would be difficult to form 
an idea of all the wonders the author discovers in the four letters that 
form, in Hebrew, the word Jehovah. These four letters allude to the 
four elements, to the four essential qualities of bodies (the point, the 
line, the plane and the solid), to the four notes of the musical scale, to 
the four streams in the earthly paradise, to the four symbolical figures 
of the chariot of Ezekiel, etc. What is more, every one of these letters, 
when considered separately, offers us a no less mysterious significance. 

The first ('—Yod) which is also the sign of the number ten and 
which, by its form, calls to our mind the mathematical point, teaches 
us that God is the beginning and the end of all things; for the point is 
the beginning, the first unit, and the ten is the end of all enumeration. 
‘The number five, expressed by the second letter ("7——Heh) shows us the 
union of God and of Nature; of God as represented by the number 
three, that is to say, by the Trinity; of visible Nature as represented, 
according to Plato and Pythagoras, by the Dyad. The third 
letter (;—Vav) is the sign of the number six. Now this number, 
venerated also by the Pythagorean school is found by uniting the 
Monad, the Dyad and the Triad, which is the symbol of all perfec- 
tion. ‘The number six is symbolical also, from another standpoint, of 


XXXIV 


the cube, of the solids or of the world: we must, therefore, believe that 
the world bears the imprint of divine perfection. The fourth 
letter (i1—Heh), finally, is the same as the second, and, consequently, 
we find ourselves once more in the presence of the number five. But 
here it corresponds to the human soul, the rational soul, which holds 
the centre between heaven and earth, just as the number five holds the 
centre in the decade, the symbolical expression of the totality of all things. 

And now we come to the third book, which has for its object the 
demonstration of the principal dogmas of Christianity by the same 
methods. The whole book is given by the mouth of Capnio; for it is 
upon the ruins of the sensualistic or exclusively pagan philosophy and 
upon the pretended Kabbalistic traditions, interpreted by Baruch in the 
preceding book, that the edifice of Christian theology is to be erected. 
A few examples will, I hope, suffice to give an idea of the method 
followed by the author, and of the way in which he affixes his general 
views to the history of religions. In the very first verse of the book 
of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” 
ne finds the mystery of the Trinity. In fact, by arresting our attention 
at the Hebrew word (yn3:—Bara) which we translate by “create,” and 
by considering each one of the three letters that form it as the initial 
of another word entirely distinct from the first, we obtain three 
terms which mean Father, Son and Holy Ghost (wpm nyota-3x—Av- 
Ben-Ruach Hakodesh). 

In the words taken from the Psalms (Ch. CXVIII, v. 22), “The 
stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone,” we 
find, by use of the same method, the two first persons of the Trinity (138 
—Aven, ti—Ben, ,3k8—Av). It is again the Christian Trinity that 
Orpheus wished to designate in his “Hymn to the Night” by the words 
v0E, ovgavdc, because Night, the engender of all things, can be aityo, 
nothing less than the Father. The Heavens, this Olympus, which 
embraces all beings in its immensity, and which is born of the Night, 
means the Son; and finally, Ether, called by the ancient poet “the 
breath of fire,” is the Holy Ghost. Translated into Hebrew the name 
Jesus (4"\"w"n"s) is the name of God plus the letter ” (Shin) which in 
the language of the Kabbalists is the symbol of fire or light of which 
St. Jerome spoke in his mystical interpretation of the alphabet as the. 
sign of the Word (Adyoc). This mysterious name is, therefore, a 
complete revelation which shows us that Jesus is God Himself, conceived: 
as Light and Word (Adyoc), or the Divine Word. 

Even the symbol of Christianity, the cross, is plainly indicated in 
the Old Testament, either by the tree of life which God placed in the 
earthly paradise, or by the supplicating attitude of Moses when he 
spread his arms towards heaven to implore for victory of Israel over 
Amalek; or, finally, by the miraculous rod which changed the bitter 
waters into sweet in the desert Morah. According to Reuchlin, God 
manifested Himself to man under three different aspects during the 
three great religious periods ordinarily distinguished since the creation, 
and to each of these aspects there corresponds a name which char- 
acterizes Him perfectly. During the reign of Nature He is called the 
“Almighty” (‘s~—Shaddai) or, rather, the “Fructifier,” the “Maintainer 
of Man.” Such is the God of Abraham and of all the patriarchs.. 


XXXV 


introduction to the first volume. This introduction, however, is 
conceived from a personal viewpoint, although it appears to be 
a simple development of a more ancient idea. It is in this book 
that the author, under pretence of defining the names consecrated 
to God, gives free course to his mystical and venturesome spirit ; 
it is there that he makes efforts to prove in a general manner, 
that all religious philosophy, whether of Greece or of the Orient, 
originated in the Hebrew books; and it is here that he lays the 
foundation for that which later on is called the “Christian” 
Kabbalah. 

Dating from that epoch Kabbalistic ideas became the object 
of more general interest, and they came to be regarded as serious 
and important not only in works of erudition, but also in the 
scientific and religious movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries. It is at that time that there appeared successively 
the two works of Cornelius Agrippa, the learned and curious 
imaginations of Postel, the repertory of the Christian Kabbalists 
published by Pistorius, the translations of Joseph Voysin, 
Kirchner’s researches on Oriental Antiquity as a whole, and, 
finally, the résumé and perfection of all these works, the 
‘Kabbalah Unveiled.” 

In Cornelius Agrippa we find a dual personality; one, the 
author of “de Occulta Philosophia” (published in Cologne in 1533 
and 1531), the enthusiastic defender of all the reveries of 
mysticism, the impassionate adept of all the fantastic arts; and the 
other, the discouraged skeptic who deplores the uncertainty and 
the vanity of the sciences.’’? It is certainly not the first personality, 
as one might suppose, which rendered the most service to the study 
of the Kabbalah. On the contrary, by losing sight of the 


During the reign of Law, or from the time of the revelation of Moses to 
the beginning of Christianity, He is called the “Lord” (»37x;—Adonai). 
because He is King and Lord of the chosen people. During the reign of 
Grace, He is called “Jesus,” the “Deliverer,” (m\wn’—Y’hoshu-ah) a 
point of view that does not lack truth and grandeur. 

19 “De Incertudine et vanitate scientiarum.” Cologne, 1527; Paris, 
1529; Antwerp, 1530. 


XXXVI 


metaphysical side of the system, i.e., of its very essence and real 
source, and by adhering solely to its mystic form, developing the 
latter to its ultimate consequences—astrology and magic, he con- 
tributed not a little in turning away from the Kabbalah the 
grave and serious minds. ; 

But Agrippa, the skeptic, Agrippa recovered from all his 
intoxications, and, so to speak, restored to the use of reason, 
recognized the rare antiquity of the Kabbalistic ideas and their 
relationship to the various sects of Gnosticism ;2® and it was also 
he who pointed out the resemblance between the diverse attributes 
recognized by the Kabbalists, otherwise called the ten Sefiroth 
and the ten mystic names spoken of by St. Jerome in his letter 
to Marcella. (De Occulta Philos., lib. 3, ch. 11.) 

As far as I know, Postel was the first to translate into Latin 
the most ancient and the most obscure monument of the Kabbalah: 
“The Book of Formation” (Sefer Yetzirah) ,2! a work ascribed at 
times by a fabulous tradition to the patriarch Abraham, at times 
even to Adam himself. As far as can be judged from this transla- 
tion, which is as obscure as its text, it appears to us in general to 
be faithful. But nothing useful can be gathered from the com- 
mentaries which follow the text and in which the author, simulat- 
ing the apostle of some new religion, uses his wealth of erudition 
to justify the deviations of an unruly imagination. Postel is also 
credited with an unpublished translation of the Zohar which we 
have searched for in vain among the manuscripts of the royal 
library. 

Pistorius has set for himself a more useful and a more modest 
aim. He endeavored to unite in one single collection all the 
writings published on the Kabbalah or imbued with its spirit; but 


20 “Fx hoc cabalisticae superstitionis judaico fermento prodierunt, 
puto, Ophitae, Gnostici et Valentiniani haeretici, qui ipsi quoque cum 
discipulis suis graecam quamdam cabalam commenti sunt,” etc. De 
Vanitate scient, c. 47. 

21 Abrahami patriarchae liber Jezirah, ex hebraeo versus et com- 
mentariis illustratus a Guilelmo Postello. Paris, 1552, 16mo. 


XXXVII 


for unknown reasons he stopped his work when it was but half 
done. Of the two enormous volumes which were originally to 
comprise the work, one was devoted to all the Kabbalistic books 
written in Hebrew, and, consequently, under the influence of 
Judaism; the other was devoted to the Christian Kabbalists, or to 
use the words of the author, ‘‘to those who professing Christianity 
are always distinguished by a pious and honest life, and whose 
writings, therefore, no one would repulse as Jewish ramblings.’’?? 
This was a wise precaution taken against the prejudices of his age. 
But only the last volume appeared.” 

This volume contains, besides the Latin translation of the 
Sefer Yetzirah and the two works of Reuchlin already mentioned, 
also a mystical, altogether arbitrary commentary on Pico de la 
Mirandola’s theses,** a Latin translation of the work of Joseph 
of Castile which served as basis for “de Verbo Mirifico” and, 
finally, different treatises of two Jewish authors, one of whom 
was led by the study of the Kabbalah to embrace Christianity ; 
this one Paul Ricci (Paulus Riccius), the physician of Emperor 
Maximilian I; the other is the son of the renowned Abravanel, or 
Judah Abravanel, better known as Leon the Hebrew.2® The 
latter doubtless merits a distinguished place in the general history 
of ‘Mysticism by his “Dialogues on Love,?® of which there are 


22 Scriptores collegi qui christianam religionem professi, religiose 
honesteque vixerunt et quorum propterea libros, tanquam judaicam 
delirationem, detestari nemo potest.—Praef., p. 2. 


23 Artis cabalisticae, h.e. reconditae theologiae et philessphiae 
scriptorum. ‘Tome I. Basel, 1587, fol. 


24 Archangeli Burgonovensis interpretationes in selectiora obscurior- 
aque Cabalistorum dogmata. Ib. supr. 


25 An exhaustive character sketch of him and his times (by Delitsch) 
is given in Fuerst’s “Orient,” Year 1840.—Jellinek. 


26 They were translated into Italian under the title, “Dialeghi de 
amore, composti per Leone Medico, di natione hebreo e di poi fatto 
christiano,” Rome 1535, 4to, and Venice, 1541. It is to be noted, though, 
that he is cited by Herrera among the Jewish philosophers (philoso- 
phorum nostratium) as Rabbi Judah Abarbanel. (Irir. Porta coelor. 
Dissert. II, ch. 2). 


XXXVIII 


several translations in French.27 But, as his work bears but 
indirectly upon the Kabbalah, it will be sufficient to point out 
casually from one of the most important viewpoints the ideas 
whence similar conclusions were drawn. 

Ricci, who paid more attention to the allegorical form than 
to the mystical foundation of the same traditions, contents himself 
by following Reuchlin’s lead at a distance; and like him, he tries 
to demonstrate, by Kabbalistic procedure, all the essential beliefs 
of Christianity. This is the character of his work “Of the 
Heavenly Agriculture.’?° He is also the author of an introduction 
to the Kabbalah?® in which he confines himself to the summing 
up, somewhat briefly, the opinions expressed by his predecessors. 
But unlike them he does not date back the tradition which he 
explains, to the patriarchs or to the father of the human race. 
He is content in the belief that these traditions were already in 
vogue at the time when Christ began to preach his doctrine, and 
that they have paved the way for the new covenant; for, according 
to him, those thousands of Jews who adopted the Gospel without 
abandoning the faith of their fathers were no others but the 
Kabbalists of those days.°° 

I shall yet mention here Joseph Voysin, whose chief merit 


27 There is one Latin translation by Sarasin; three French by 
Sauvage, Pontus de Thiard and du Parc; four Spanish by Montesa, 
Garcilasso de la Vega, Yahija and Juan Costa of Arragonia.—Jellinek. 

28 “De celesti Agricultura,’ comprising four books. The first is a 
refutation of the philosophers who repulse Christianity as contrary to 
reason; the second is directed against modern Judaism, against the 
Talmudic system, and endeavors to prove through symbolic interpretation 
of the Scriptures that all the Christian dogmas are found in the Old 
Testament; the third aims to reconcile the opinions which divide 
Christianity by making each one do his part, and by calling all to 
catholic unity; in the fourth volume only does the author treat of the 
Kabbalah and of the use that can be made of it for the conversion of the 
Jews. 

29 Isagoge in Cabbalistarum eruditionem et introductoria theoremata 
cabalistica. 

86 “ | | | Cabala cujus praecipui (haud dubie) fuere cultores primi 
hebraeorum Christi auditorum et sacram ejus doctrinam atque fidei 
pietatem amplectentium, aemuli tamen paternae legis.’ De Coelesti 
Agricultura, lib. IV, ad init. 


XXX1X 


about the Kabbalah is that he faithfully translated from the Zohar 
several texts on the nature of the soul,®! and then hasten to works 
more important at least because of the influence they exerted. 
The name of Kirchner can not be spoken without deep 
reverence. He was a living encyclopedia of all the sciences. No 
science was entirely beyond his prodigious learning, and there are 
several, notably Archaeology, Philology and Natural Sciences, that 
are indebted to him for important discoveries. But it is also 
known that this remarkable scholar did not shine through those 
qualities which go to make up the critic and the philosopher, and 
that at times he exhibits even uncommon credulity. Such is the 
character he shows all through his exposition of the doctrines of 
the Kabbalists.2 ‘Thus, he does not doubt for a moment that 
the Kabbalah was first brought to Egypt by the patriarch Abraham, 
and that from Egypt it spread gradually through the remainder 
of the Orient, mingling with all the religions and all the systems 
of philosophy. But, while conceding this imaginary authority and 
this fabulous antiquity, he despoils the work of its real merits. 
The profound and original ideas, the bold creeds the Kabbalah 
contains, and the striking views it darts into the foundations of 
every religion and morality, escape entirely his feeble perception, 
which is struck only by the symbolical forms, the use and misuse 
of which seem to exist in the very nature of mysticism. The 
Kabbalah exists for him only in this gross envelope with its 
thousands of combinations of numbers and letters, its arbitrary 
ciphers, and, finally, its more or less fantastic procedure by means 
of which it forces the sacred script to lend such meaning as to 
find access to minds rebellious to all authority save the Bible. 
The facts and the texts which I have brought together in this 
volume aim to destroy this strange point of view and, therefore, 


31 Disputatio cabalistica R. Israel filii Mosis de anima, etc. Adjectis 
commentariis ex Zohar; Paris, 1655. His Theologia Judaeorum contains 
nothing of the Kabbalah. 

32 Oedipus Aegyptiacus, vol. II, part I. This work was published 
at Rome from 1652 to 1654. 


xl 


I shall not dwell upon it any longer. I will say only that Kirchner, 
just like Reuchlin and Pico de la Mirandola, knew but the works 
of the modern Kabbalists, the majority of whom halted midway on 
the road to wisdom at the dead letter: and senseless symbols. 

On the subject occupying us, there is today no work more com- 
plete, more exact and more worthy of respect due to much labor 
and sacrifice, than that of Baron of Rosenroth or “the Kabbalah 
Unveiled.’°= There are precious texts in that book which are 
accompanied by generally faithful translations, among them the 
most ancient fragments of the Zohar, the most important work 
of the Kabbalah; and where there are no texts it gives extensive 
analyses and very detailed tables. It contains also either numerous 
extracts or entire treatises from modern Kabbalists, a kind of 
dictionary which prepares us more for the knowledge of things 
than of words. 

And, finally, under pretext, and perhaps in the sincere hope 
of converting the adepts of the Kabbalah to Christianity, the 
author collected all the passages of the New Testament which 
show any resemblance to their doctrine. Yet, there must be no 
illusion as to the character of this great work; like its predecessors 
it does not throw any more light on the origin, the transmission 
or the authenticity of the most ancient monuments of the Kabbalah. 
In vain, too, will one look there for a regularly ordered and 
complete exposition of the Kabbalistic system. It contains only 
such material which, perforce, must enter into a work of this 
nature; and, even when considered from this single point of 
view, it is not beyond the lash of criticism. Although much too 
severe in some of his expressions, Budde was not unjust when 
he said: “it is an obscure and confused work in which the neces- 
sary and the unnecessary, the useful and the superfluous, are 
thrown together pell-mell, in the same chaos.’’34 


83 Kabbala Denudata, seu Doctrina Haebraeorum transcendentalis, 
etc., tome II, Solisb., 1677, 4 to, tome II, liber Zohar restitutus. Franck, 
1684, 4to. 


34 “Confusum et obscurum opus, in quo necessaria cum non neces- 


xli 


With a better choice, his work might have been richer and 
less extensive. In fact, why did he not leave the dreams of 
Henry Morus, which have nothing in common with the mystic 
theology of the Hebrews, in their proper place, that is in the 
collected works of this author? And I would say the same of 
the pretended Kabbalistic work of Herrera. This Spanish rabbi, 
remarkable for his philosophical erudition, was not content to 
substitute the modern traditions of the school of Isaac Luria®® 
for the true principles of the Kabbalah; but he found also the 
secret of disfiguring these principles by mingling with them the 
ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Avicenna and Pico de la 
Mirandola—in short, all that he knew of the Greek and Arabian 
philosophy. 

Modern historians of philosophy have taken chiefly Herrera 
for their guide in the interpretations of the Kabbalah, probably 
because of the didactic order of his dissertations and the precision 
of his language. And as such a guide has been accepted, no 
wonder that quite recent origin has been ascribed to this science, 
or that it was looked upon as a faint imitation, a badly disguised 
plagiarism of the other well known systems! Finally, since the 
author of the ‘Kabbalah Denudata” was not willing to adhere 
to the most ancient sources and to acquaint us through more 
numerous quotations with the originality and interesting facts 
hidden in the Zohar, why this predilection for the commentaries 
of Isaac Luria, which no one in possession of his reason can stand 
reading? Would not the sacrifices and the laborious vigils which, 
by the author’s own avowals, it cost him to bring to light those 
sterile chimeras, have been better employed upon the long chain 
of Kabbalists still too little known, beginning at Saadia, around 
the tenth century, and ending with the thirteenth century at 


sariis, utilia cum inutilibis, confusa sunt, et in unum vyelut chaos 
conjecta.”—Introd. ad Philos. hebr. 
85 He himself said that having been taught by Israel Serug, the 
ee disciple of Luria, he was of Luria’s school.—Porta coelor., 
SeChS )s 


xhii 


Nachmanides? In this way, by including all the traditions: com- 
posing the Zohar, we would have had before our eyes the entire 
chain of Kabbalistic traditions, starting with the moment when 
they were first written down until the point when their secret 
was completely violated by Moses de Leon.2® Had this task 
been too difficult, it would, at least, have been possible to have 
devoted some space to the esteemed works of Nachmanides,?* 
the defender of the celebrated Moses ben Maimon, and whose 
Kabbalistic knowledge inspired admiration so intense that it 
was said to have been brought to him by the prophet Elijah 
from heaven. 

Despite its gaps and its numerous imperfections, Rosenroth’s 
conscientious labor will stand forever as a monument of patience 
and erudition, and it will be consulted by all who will want to 
know the products of thought among the Jews, or by those who 
wish to observe mysticism in all its forms and in all its results. It 
is owing to his deeper knowledge of the Kabbalah, that this 
doctrine has ceased to be studied exclusively -either as an instru- 
ment of conversion or as an occult science. It has taken a place 
in philosophical and philological research, in the general history of 
philosophy and in rational theology which has attempted by its 
light to expound some of the difficult passages of the New 
‘Testament. 

The first whom we see taking this direction is George 
Wachter, theologian and distinguished philosopher, who, because 
of the independence of his mind, was falsely accused of Spinozaism, 
and who was the author of an attempt to reconcile the two 


36 Information concerning all the names cited will be found in the 
first part of this book. 

37 Nachmanides or Moses ben Nachman, called by abbreviation 
Ramban (}”205), was born in Granada, and flourished toward the close 
of the thirteenth century. He was a doctor, a philosopher and, more 
than all, a Kabbalist. His chief works are: “Commentary on the 
Pentateuch”’ (mina oy 1892), “The Book of Faith and Hope” 
(;inpam) 7208 HD) and the “Law of Man” (p78 n7In) : 


xliti 


sciences to which he had consecrated equal devotion.2® Wachter’s 
attention was first turned to the Kabbalah in this way: A 
protestant of the confession of Augsburg, seduced by this system 
to which he was otherwise a stranger, converted himself publicly 
to Judaism, discarded his real name (Johann Peter Speeth) and 
took the name of Moses Germanus. He foolishly challenged 
Wachter to imitate him and engaged with him in a correspondence 
from which sprang a little book entitled “Spinozaism in Judaism.” 
(Amsterdam, 1699, 12mo, in German.) 

The book does not throw much light upon the nature or upon 
the origin of the Kabbalistic ideas, but it raises a question of the 
highest interest: Was Spinoza initiated in the Kabbalah, and 
what influence did this doctrine exert upon his system? Until 
then it was the almost general opinion among scholars that there 
is quite a close affinity between the most important points of the 
science of the Kabbalists and the fundamental dogmas of the 
Christian religion. Wachter undertook to demonstrate that these 
two orders of ideas are separated by an abyss; for, in his opinion, 
the Kabbalah is nothing but atheism, the negation of God and 
the deification of the world, a doctrine which he believed to be 
that of the Dutch philosopher and to which Spinoza gave a more 
modern form. 

We need not investigate here whether the two systems, per se, 
are well or ill-judged, but whether there is some ground for the 
theory of their affinity or for their historical succession. The sole 
proof given (for I do not count more or less far-fetched analogies 
and resemblances) consists of two very important passages, indeed, 
one drawn from “Ethics,” the other from Spinoza’s letters. ‘The 
last named reads: ‘When I affirm that all things exist in God, 
and that in Him all things move, I speak like St. Paul, like all the 
philosophers of antiquity, although I express myself in a different 
way, and I even dare to add: like all the ancient Hebrews, as far 


: 38 The work in which he pursued that aim has for title: “Concordia 
rationis et fidei, sive Harmonia philosphiae moralis et religionis 
Christianae.” Amst., 1692, 8vo. 


xliv 


as can be judged by certain of their traditions which have been 
altered in many ways.”°9 Evidently, nothing but the Kabbalistic 
traditions are referred to in these lines; for those which the Jews 
collected in the Talmud are either. recitals (Haggadah) or 
ceremonial laws (Halakah). 

The passage from “Ethics” is still more decisive. Having 
spoken of the unity of substance, Spinoza adds: “It is this 
principle which some of the Hebrews seem to have perceived as 
through a cloud when they thought that God, the Intelligence of 
God and the objects under the action of that intelligence, as of 


40 'The historical sense of these words 


one and the same thing. 
can not be mistaken if we juxtapose them with the following lines 
translated nearly literally from a Kabbalistic work, the most 
faithful commentary to the Zohar: “The knowledge of the 
Creator is not like the knowledge of the Creatures; for with the 
latter the knowledge is apart from the known subject. ‘This is 
designated by the following terms: the thought, he who thinks and 
that which is thought of. The Creator, on the contrary, is 
Himself the Knowledge, the One who knows, and the One 
known. God’s way of knowing does not really consist in applying 
His thought to things outside of Himself. It is by cognizing 
and knowing Himself that He also cognizes and knows all that 
exists. Nothing exists that is not united with Him and which 
He could not find in His own substance. He is the prototype 
of all Being, and in Him all things exist in the purest and most 
accomplished form; so that the perfection of the creatures is in 
this very existence by virtue of which they find themselves united 


89 Omnia, inquam, in Deo esse, et in Deo moveri cum Paulo affirmo, 
et forte etiam cum omnibus antiquis philosophis, licet alio modo, et 
auderem etiam dicere, cum antiquis omnibus Hebraeis, quantum ex 
quibusdam traditionibus, tametsi multis modis adulteratis conjicere licet. 
—Epist. XXI. 

40 Hoc quidam Hebraeorum quasi per nebulam vidisse yidentur, qui 
silicet statuunt Deum, Dei intellectum, resque ab ipso intellectas, unum 
et idem esse —Eth. part II, prop. 7, Schol. 


xlv 


with the source of their being; and in measure as they deviate 
from it, they sink from that sublime and perfect state.’’41 
What conclusion can be drawn from these words? Is it that 
the ideas and the Carthesian method, that the altogether indepen- 
dent development of reason, and above all, that individual 
estimates as well as the errors of genius, count for nothing in 
the most audacious conception of which the history of modern 
philosophy can give an example? ‘This would be a strange 
paradox which we would not even attempt to refute. Moreover, 
it is easy to see by the very citations given as authority, that 
Spinoza had but a very summary and uncertain idea of the 
Kabbalah, the importance of which he could have recognized 
only after the creation of his own system.** But, strangely, 
having stripped Spinoza of all originality for the benefit of the 
Kabbalah, Wachter turned that doctrine itself into a miserable 
plagiarism, a characterless compilation to which have contributed 
all the centuries during which it remained unknown, all the 
countries where the Jews were dispersed, and, consequently, the 
most contradictory systems. How could such a work be more 
atheistic than theistic? Would it not teach pantheism_ rather 
than one God distinct from the world? Above all, how had it 
taken in the “Ethics” the form of severe unity, the inflexible vigor — 
of the exact sciences? 


But we must do Wachter the justice to say that he modified 
his opinions considerably in a second volume on the same subject. 
(Elucidarius Cabbalisticus, Rome, 1706, 8 vo.) Thus, ‘according 
to him, Spinoza is no longer the apostle of atheism, but a true 
savant who, enlightened by a sublime science, recognized the 


41 Moses Cordovero, “Pardes Rimonim,” fol. 55a. 


42 He knew the modern Kabbalists much better, or, at least. ome 
of them, against whom he did not spare some abusive epithets: _ Logi 
etiam et in ‘super novi nugatores alique kabbalistas, quorum insaniam 
numquam mirari satis potui. (Tract. theolo. polit., ch. 9.) It wuld be 
absurd to wish to apply this phrase to the Kabbalists in general. 


xl vi 


divinity of Christ and all the truths of the Christian religion.* 
He naively confesses that he judged him previously without having 
known him, and that he was influenced against him by prejudices 
and excited passions when he recorded his first impressions.** 
He makes equally an honorable apology to the Kabbalah by dis- 
tinguishing two essentially different doctrines by that name: the 
modern Kabbalah lies under the weight of his scorn and anathema; 
but the ancient Kabbalah which, according to him, lasted until 
the council of Nice, was a traditional science of the highest 
order, the origin of which loses itself in mysterious antiquity. 
The first Christians, the oldest fathers of the Church, had no 
other philosophy ;4° and it is this philosophy which led Spinoza 
upon the road of Truth. The author stubbornly insists upon 
this point and makes it the centre of his researches. 

Though in its entirety very superficial, and at times far from 
accurate, this parallel between the doctrine of Spinoza and that 
of the Kabbalists contributed not a little to the enlightenment 
of the minds as to the true significance of the Kabbalah; I speak 
of its character and its metaphysical principles. That parallel 
led to an examination which proved that the theory which had 
caused so much surprise and scandal, the theory that God is an 
unique substance and the immanent cause and real nature of all 
that is, was not new, that it appeared already before, at the 
cradle of Christianity, under the very name of the religion. But 
this idea is also met with somewhere in a no less remote antiquity. 
Where, then, is the origin of this idea to be looked for? Is it 
Greece, or Egypt of the Ptolomaeans that have given it to 


#3 Non defuerunt viri docti, qui posthabita philosophia vulgari, 
reconditam et antiquissimam Hebracorum sectarentur. Quos_ inter 
memorandus mihi est Benedictus de Spinoza, qui ex philosophiae hujus 
rationibus, divinitatem Christi atque circa veritatem universae religionis 
christianae agnovit.—Elucid. Cab. praef., p. 7. 

44 Ib. supr., p. 13. 

.45 , . . Haec philosophia, ab Hebraeis accepta, et sacris Ecclesiae 
patribus tantopere commendata, post tempora nicaena mox expiravit.— 
Ib. supr. 


xlvii 


Palestine? Is it Palestine which found it first? or is it necessary 
to go back still further into the Orient? 

Such are the questions which occupied the minds primarily, 
and such also is the meaning attached to the Kabbalistic traditions 
since that time by all save a few critics who are peculiarly attentive 
to nothing but form. It is no longer a question of a certain 
method of interpretation applied to Holy Writ, nor of mysteries 
far beyond reason, which God Himself revealed whether to 
Moses, to Abraham or to Adam, but it is a question of a purely 
human science, of a system representing within itself the entire 
metaphysics of an ancient people, and, therefore, of great interest 
to the history of the human mind, once more a philosophical 
viewpoint that dislodged Allegory and Mysticism. 

This spirit is shown not only in Brucker’s exposition, where it 
is perfectly in place, but it seems also to be generally prevalent. 
Thus, in 1785 a learned association, the Society for the Investiga- 
tion of Antiquities at Cassel, opened an academic competition 
on the following topic: ‘Does the doctrine of the Kabbalists, 
according to which all things are engendered by the emanation 
of the very essence of God, come from the Greek philosophy or 
not?” Unfortunately, the answer was much less sensible than 
the question. The work which carried off the prize—very little 
known and not deserving to be known—certainly does not cast 
any new light upon the very nature of the Kabbalah and what 
concerns the origin of this system, it contents itself with repro- 
ducing the most defaced fables.4® It shows the Kabbalistic ideas 
in the hymns of Orpheus and in the philosophy of Thales and 
Pythagoras; it makes them contemporaries of the patriarchs, and, 
without any hesitation it hands them to us as the ancient wisdom 
of the Chaldeans. It is less surprising when it is known that 
the author was of the sect of the Illuminati who, following the 


46 On the nature and origin of the Kabbalists’ doctrine of Emana- 
tion. Riga, 1786, 8. 


xl viii 


example of all such associations, dated its annals back to the very 
cradle of humanity.*7 

But Rational Theology—as it is called in Germany—that is 
that absolutely independent method of expounding the Holy 
Scriptures, of which Spinoza gave an example in his Theologic- 
Political tractat, made frequent use of the Kabbalah. As I said 
before, it made use of it for the purpose of explaining divers 
passages in the letters of St. Paul which referred to the heresies 
of that day. It desired also to find therein the explanation of 
the first verses of the Gospel of St. John, and tried to make it 
useful either for the study of Gnosticism or for the study of 
ecclesiastic history in general.4® ‘Tiedemann and Tennemann, at 
the same time, had given the Kabbalah a kind of deed of possession 
in the history of philosophy, which was at first consecrated to 
it by Brucker. ‘There soon appeared the school of Hegel which 
could not fail to make use of a system wherein it found, under 
another form, some of its own doctrines. 

A reaction against this ever famous school was surely not 
slow in coming, and it is evidently under this sentiment that the 
useless work ‘“‘Kabbalism and Pantheism” was written. The 
author of that little book strives to prove, at the expense of the 
evidence, that there is no resemblance between the two systems 
which he undertakes to compare; for it often happens that the 
passages which he uses as bases of his arguments are diametrically 
opposed to the deductions he draws from them. Besides, as far 
as erudition is concerned, he is far inferior to most of the writers 
who preceded him; and does not surpass them either by criticism 
of the sources or by philosophic appreciation of the ideas, not- 
withstanding the pedantic attire and luxury of citations with 
which he pleases to surround himself. 

Finally, Herr Tholuck, a man who is justly entitled to 
eminent rank among the theologians and orientalists of Germany, 


47 See Tholuck, de Ortu Cabbalae, Hamb., 1837, p. 3. 
Tholuck, de Ortu Cabbalae, 1837, p. 4. 
48 Kabbalismus et Pantheismus by M. Freystadt, Koenigsberg, 1832. 


xlix 


recently also desired to contribute to this subject his knowledge 
and skilled criticism. But as he concerns himself with one 
particular point, the origin of the Kabbalah, and as any apprecia- 
tion of his opinions would demand profound discussion, I have 
reserved comment of him for the body of this work, as a more 
opportune time. ‘This refers also to all the modern writers, 
whose names, although deserving a place here, have as yet not 
-been mentioned. 

Such are, in substance, the efforts made until now for the 
discovery of the meanings and the origin of the Kabbalistic books. 
I do not wish to have the conclusion drawn that all must be 
started anew again because one is struck only by those books 
which are incomplete. On the contrary, | am convinced, that 
the labors and even the errors of such distinguished minds can 
not be ignored without punishment to those wishing seriously to 
study the same subject. Even were it possible, in fact, to approach 
the original monuments without any aid, it would, nevertheless, 
always be necessary to know beforehand the various interpreta- 
tions which have been given to them to the present day; for each 
one of these correspond to a viewpoint well founded in itself, 
but which becomes faulty when one sticks to it exclusively. 

Thus has the Kabbalah—to corroborate what has just been 
said and to sum up briefly the foregoing—been accepted by some 
who had in view only its allegorical form and mystical character, 
with mystic enthusiasm as an anticipated revelation of Christian 
dogmas; others took it as an occult art, struck by the strange 
figure, the queer formulas under which it loves to hide its real 
intention, and by the relations it incessantly establishes between 
man and all parts of the universe; others, finally, took hold above 
all of its metaphysical principles and tried to find therein an 
antecedent, either honorable or dishonorable, of the philosophy 
of their times. 

It is easy to understand that with partial and incomplete 
‘studies governed by various prejudices, one can find all this in 


l 


the Kabbalah without necessarily contradicting the facts. But, 
in order to have an exact idea and to find the place which it 
really holds among works of intelligence, it should be studied 
neither in the interest of a system, nor in the interest of a 
religious belief; on the contrary, one will endeavor for the sake 
of truth only, to furnish to the general history of human thought 
some elements as yet too little known. This is the aim I desire 
to reach in the following work for which I spared neither time 
nor research. 


Ap. FRANCK. 


li 


INTRODUCTION 


Although one finds in the Kabbalah a complete system on 
things of a moral and spiritual order, yet it can not be considered 
either as a philosophy or as a religion; J mean to say, it rests, 
apparently at least, neither upon reason nor upon inspiration or 
authority. Like most of the systems of the Middle Ages, it is 
the fruit of the union of these two intellectual powers. Essentially 
different from religious belief, under the power, and one can say, 
under the protection of which, it was born, it introduced itself, 
thanks to peculiar forms and processes, unnoticed into the minds. 
‘These forms and these processes would weaken the interest of 
which it is worthy, and would not always permit conviction of 
the importance which we believe to be justified in attributing to 
it, if, before making it known in its different elements and before 
attempting the solution of questions incident thereto, we do not 
indicate, with some precision, the place it occupies among the 
works of thought, the rank it should hold among religious beliefs 
and philosophic systems, and, finally, the requirements or laws 
which could explain the peculiar means of its development. It 
is this we shall attempt to accomplish with all possible brevity. 

It is a fact, proven by the history of entire humanity, that 
moral truth, the knowledge which we can acquire about our 
nature, our destiny and the principle of the universe, were, at 
first, not accepted on the strength of reason or conscience, but 
by the effect of a power which was more active upon the minds 
of the people, and which has the general attribute of presenting 


lin 


to us ideas under a nearly material form, sometimes under the 
form of a word descended from heaven to human ears, sometimes 
in the form of a person who develops them in examples and 
actions. ‘This power, universally known as Religion or Revelation, 
has its revolutions and its laws; notwithstanding the unity that 
rules at the bottom of its nature, it changes its aspect, like 
philosophy, poetry and arts, with the centuries and countries. But, 
at what time and at what place this power may come to establish 
itself, it can not off-hand tell man all that which he needs to 
know, not even in the sphere of duties and beliefs which it 
imposes upon him, nor even when he has no other ambition but 
to understand it in so far as is necessary for his obeisance to it. 

In fact, there are in all religions, dogmas which need to be 
explained, principles the consequences of which remain to be 
developed, laws without possible application, as well as questions 
totally forgotten which, surely, touch upon the most important 
interests of humanity. The work of answering to all those needs 
calls for great mental activity; and the intellect, therefore, is 
impelled to the use of its own powers by the very desire to 
believe and obey. But this impulse does not produce everywhere 
the same results and does not act upon all intellects in the same 
manner. 

Some intellects will not yield any place to individual 
independence; they drive the principle of authority to its last 
consequences, and set up, side by side with written revelation 
where nothing but dogmas, principles and general laws are found, 
an oral revelation, a tradition or perhaps a permanent power 
infallible in its decisions, a sort of living tradition which furnishes 
explanations, forms and details of religious life; and which 
produces, if not in faith, in cult and symbols at least, an imposing 
unity. Of such are the orthodox of all beliefs. Other intellects 
trust no one but themselves, that is to say, their power of 
reasoning to fill these gaps and to solve the problems in the 
revealed word. All authority other than that of the holy texts 
appears to them as an usurpation; or, if they do follow it, it is 


hii 


only when it is in accord with their personal feelings. But, 
little by little, their mental forces, their reflection and judgment 
gain in firmness and development, and, instead of exerting 
themselves on the religious dogmas, they rise above these and 
seek in their own reason, their own conscience, or in the conscience 
and reason of their fellow-men—in a word—in the works of 
human wisdom, the beliefs which they were once obliged to let 
descend bodily from heaven. 

Finally, there is in this sphere a third class of thinkers—those 
who do not admit tradition or, at least, whom tradition and 
authority can not satisfy, and who certainly can not or dare not 
use reasoning. On the one hand they are too high-minded to 
admit the revealed word in a natural and historic sense which 
accords with the letter and spirit of the masses; on the other hand, 
they can not believe that man can dispense entirely with revela- 
tion, or that truth reaches him in any other way than by the 
effect of divine teaching. It is because of this that they see 
nothing but symbols and images in the greater number of dogmas, 
precepts and religious tales; that they search everywhere for a 
mysterious, profound meaning in accord with their thoughts and 
feelings, but which, because preconceived, can not be found in 
or interpreted into the sacred texts except by more or less arbitrary 
means. 

It is principally by this method and by this tendency that 
the mystics are recognized. I do not say that mysticism did 
not show itself sometimes in a bolder form. At a time when 
philosophical habits had already held sway, mysticism finds in 
this very consciousness the divine action, the immediate revelation 
which it claims to be indispensable to man. It recognizes it 
either in the feelings or in the intuitions of reason. Thus it is, 
to cite an example, how mysticism was conceived in the fifteenth 
century by Gerson.1_ But when mystical ideas require the support 


. 4 “Considerationes de Theologia Mystica.” From the very begin- 
ning this proposition confronts us: Quod si dicatur omnis scientia 
procedens ex experientiis, mystica theologia vere erit philosophia. 


liv 


of external sanction, that support can be produced only in the 
form of a symbolical interpretation of what people call their 
Holy Scriptures. 

These three tendencies of the mind, these three ways of 
conceiving revelation and of continuing its work, are found in the 
history of all the religions that have struck roots in the human 
soul. I shall cite only those religions which are nearest to us 
and which, therefore, we can know with more certainty. 

In the bosom of Christianity, the Roman Church represents 
tradition and authority in their highest degree of splendor. We 
find reason applied to faith not only in the majority of Protestant 
communions, among the defenders of the so-called rational 
exegesis, but also among the scholastic philosophers who were the 
first to subject religious dogmas to the laws of syllogism and 
who showed the same respect for the words of Aristotle that 
they showed for the words of the Apostles. Who does not see 
symbolical mysticism with its arbitrary method and exaggerated 
spirituality in all the agnostic sects, in Origen, in Jacob Boehm, 
and in all who follow in their steps? But no one carried the 
system as far, nobody formulated it as frankly and as boldly as 
Origen whose name we shall yet meet in this book. If we glance 
at Mohammed’s religion, if among the many sects it brought to 
light, we stop at those which show a decided character, we are 
immediately struck by the same spectacle. The Sunnis and the 
Chiits, whose separation came from the rivalry of individuals 
rather than from a marked difference of opinion, equally defend 
the cause of unity and orthodoxy; but, the first, in order to attain 
their purpose, admit in addition to the Koran a collection of 
traditions—the Sunnat—from which they derive their name; the 
others, the Chiits, reject the tradition, but replace it by a living 
authority, a sort of continued revelation, in as much as one of 
the most essential articles of their belief is that after the prophet, 


Consid. 2d, He goes even so far as to define the nature of this experience. 
Experientiis habitis ad intra, in cordibus animarum devotarum. (Gerson.) 


lv 


his apostle Ali and the Imams of his race are the representatives 
of God on earth.? 

Islamism had also its scholastic philosophers, known by the 
name of Motecallemin,? and it had also a large number of 
heresies which seem to have joined the doctrine of Pelagius to 
the rational method of modern Protestantism. This is how a 
celebrated orientalist defined the latter: “All sects of the 
Mutazilahs agree generally in that tney deny the existence of 
attributes in God, and they endeavor particularly to avoid 
everything that could injure the dogma of the unity of God; and 
then, in order to maintain the justice of God and ward off any 
idea of injustice from Him, they accord to man full liberty of 
his own actions and deny God all interference with them; finally, 
they agree in teaching that all the knowledge necessary to 
salvation is within the province of reason, and that it can be 
acquired solely by means of the light of reason before, as well as 
after, revelation.’”4 

The Karmates, whose existence dates from the year 264 of 
the Hegira, embraced the system of allegorical interpretations 
and all the opinions serving as bases for mysticism. If we are to 
believe the author already quoted—who does nothing more than 
translate the words of an Arabian historian—‘‘they called their 
doctrine the science of the inner faculties, and which consists in 
turning the precepts of Islamism into allegories and in substituting 
things founded on imagination for external observance, as well 
as allegorizing verses of the Koran and giving them forced 
interpretations.” ‘There is more than one point of resemblance 
between this doctrine and the doctrine which we aim to make 
acquaintance with.® 


2 Maracci, Prodromus in ref. Alcon B, IV. De Sacy, Exposé de la 
religion des Druzes, introduction. 

® The rabbis converted the name to 07242 which means speakers 
or dialecticians. 

4 De Sacy, Introduction a l’exposé de la religion des Druzes, p. 37. 

5 I shall cite but one of those points. The Karmathians hold that 
man’s body, when standing, represents an Alef; that when kneeling, 
it represents a Lam, and that when prostrate, it represents a He. So the 


lvi 


Finally we come to Judaism, from whose breast, nourished 
by its spirit and its essence, sprang the two rival creeds already 
cited. We have intentionally reserved the last place for Judaism, 
because it leads us naturally to our subject. Besides the Bible, 
orthodox Jews recognize traditions which receive from them the 
same respect as the precepts of the Pentateuch. At first transmitted 
from mouth to mouth and scattered everywhere, then collected 
and edited by Judah the Holy® under the name of Mishnah; and, 
finally, prodigiously augmented and developed by the authors of 
the Talmud, they now leave not the smallest part to reason and 
liberty. Not only do they deny in principle the existence of 
these two moral forces, but they strike them with paralysis by 
usurping their places everywhere. 

They cover all actions from the expression of exalted moral 
and religious feeling to the vilest functions of animal life. ‘They 
have counted, regulated and weighed everything in advance. It 
is despotism of every day and of every instant against which 
one is inevitably compelled to fight with trickery if he does not 
want to substitute a higher authority in its place. ‘The Karaites, 
who must not be confounded with the Saducees whose existence 
does not reach beyond the destruction of the second temple’—the 
Karaites are, in a way, the Protestants of Judaism; they reject, 
apparently, the tradition and pretend to recognize nothing but 
the Bible, I mean the Old Testament, for the explanation of 
which reason seems to them to be sufficient. But others, without 
ceasing to be believers and admitting the principle of revelation, 
and who certainly form no religious sect, have succeeded in giving 
Reason a much greater and a much finer place in the domain 





body of man is like a book wherein one reads the name of Allah. (See 
De Sacy’s Introduction a l’exposé‘de la religion des Druzes. p. 86, 87.) 
According to the Kabbalists, the head of a man forms an Yod ( ‘ ); his 
two arms hanging on either side of his breast, form a He (4); his 
bust forms a Vav (1); and his two legs, surmounted by a basin, form 
another He( 7). So that his entire body represents the thrice-holy name, 
Jehovah. (Zohar, 2nd part, fol. 42, published in Mantua.) 

6 Better known as Judah ha-Nassi (the Prince).—Transl. 

7 Peter Beer. History of the religious sects of Judaism. 1st part. 
p. 149. 


Ivii 


of Faith. These are they who would justify the chief articles 
of their belief by the very principles of Reason; who would 
reconcile the legislation of Moses with the philosophy of their 
times, that is that of Aristotle, and who have founded a science 
entirely similar in its name and in its objects to the Arabian 
and Christian scholastics. 

The first, and beyond a question the boldest of them, is the 
celebrated Rabbi Saadia, who at the beginning of the tenth century 
was at the head of the academy of Sura in Persia; and whose 
name is cited with respect by Mussulman authors, as well as 
by his coreligionists.8 After Saadia came Abraham Ibn-Ezra, 
Rabbi Bachye, Arabic author of an excellent moral and theological 
treatise ;? and Moses Maimonides, whose stupendous reputation 
was detrimental to the many, who, coming after him, defended 
the same cause. Those among the Jews who saw in the law only 
a gross exterior under which was hidden a mysterious meaning, 
much higher than the historical, literal meaning, divided them- 





8 The commentary which he wrote in Arabic on the Sefer Yetzirah, 
one of the most ancient monuments of the Kabbalah, is of wholly 
philosophical meaning, and it is wrong that he is counted by Reuchlin 
and other historians of the Kabbalah among the defenders of that 
system. His book, “Beliefs and Opinions” ( miytm) n21DNn ), translated 
from the Arabic into Hebrew by Rabbi Judah ben Saul ibn Tibbon, 
very probably served as model for the famous book of Maimonides 
entitled “Guide for the Perplexed” (o°3)23 Any»—Moreh Nvuchim). 
From the first lines of the preface Saadia frankly places himself between 
two opposing parties; “those,” he said, “who, because of incomplete 
researches and ill-directed meditations, have fallen into an abyss of 
doubt; and those who regard the use of reason as dangerous to Faith.” 


He admits four kinds of knowledge: ist, that which comes through 
the senses; 2nd, that which comes through the mind or through the 
conscience—as when we say that falsehood is a vice and truth a 
virtue; 3rd, the knowledge which furnishes us intuition and reason- 
ing—as when we admit the existence of the soul because of its operations; 
4th, the authentic tradition ( 39x37 AII0N ) which should take the 
place of science with people who are not in a condition to exercise 
their intelligence.*) 

*) The Hebrew commentary attributed to Saadia is forged. Comp. 
Rapaport, Biography of R. Saadia. Note 30, Munk, Notice sur Rabbi 
Saadiah Gaon. p. 14-15.—Jellinek 

® This work is calledmi239n niain —“The Duties of the Heart.” 
The author lived arouhd 5921 (1161). 


lvill 


selves into two classes, the distinction of which is of great 
importance to the aim we have set. 

To one class, the inner, spiritual meaning of the Scriptures 
was a philosophical system somewhat favorable, it is true, to 
mystic exaltation, but drawn from a source entirely foreign; it 
was, in short, Plato’s doctrine a little exaggerated, as it was 
later on in the school of Plotinus, and mingled with ideas of 
Oriental origin. ‘This is the character of Philo and all those 
who are customarily called “Hellenizing Jews,” because, mixed 
among the Greeks of Alexandria, they borrowed from the latter 
their language, their civilization, and such of their philosophic 
systems as could best reconcile with the monotheism and religious 
legislation of Moses.1° 


The others obeyed the impulse of their intelligence only, The 
ideas they introduced into the sacred books, in order to make it 
appear that they had found them there, and then to pass them 
on in the shadow of mystery, it is true, and under the protection 
of revelation, these ideas are entirely their own, and constitute 
a system truly original and truly grand which resembles any 
other system, whether philosophical or religious only in that it 
comes from the same source, in that it was called forth by the 
same causes, in that it responds to the same needs, in short, in 
that it rests upon the general laws of the human mind. ‘These 
are the Kabbalists!! whose opinions must be drawn from original 





10 They are mentioned in this passage of Eusebius: 

Td xév 'Toviaiwv ibvoc cic So tujuata Smhonta. Koi thw pév xAn- 
tiv taic tHv vouov xatd THY ENT Siavoiav naonyyEerLévats tnodhxouc 
intiye, th S€tegov tHv év EEer tayna, tadvtns wev fie, dervotgog Be 
tiv. xal toig mohhoic éxavafeBynxeta qirocogia meociyew HEov Peooig 
te tav év toic pOTOLs xaTa Siavoiav onuaivouéevov. (Euseb. 1. 8. c. 10.) 

The author puts these words in the mouth of Aristobulus, who could 
not have known the Kabbalah. 

11 Although we shall later on find opportunity to speak at length of 
Philo, it is necessary to point out here his distinction from the Kabbalists 
with whom several historians confounded him. First, it is almost certain 
that Philo was ignorant of Hebrew, a knowledge of which, as we shall 
soon see, is indispensable to the Kabbalistic method. Then again, Philo 
and the Kabbalists differ no less in depth of their ideas. The latter admit 


lix 


sources to be known and justly appreciated; because, later, 
cultured minds supposed that they honored them by mixing them 
with the ideas of the Greeks and Arabians. “Those, who through 
superstition remained strangers to the civilization of their times, 
gradually abandoned the deep speculations of which they were 
the result, and conserved only the very gross means originally 
designed to disguise their boldness and depth. 

First of all we shall try to determine near what time we 
find the Kabbalah fully formed, in what books it was preserved 
for us, how these books were formed and transmitted to us, and, 
finally, what foundation we can lay upon its authenticity. 

We shall make an attempt to give of it a faithful and full 
account, to which we shall, as much as possible, make the authors 
themselves of this doctrine contribute; passing their language into 
ours with as much exactitude as our feeble means may permit. 
At last, we shall occupy ourselves with the origin and influence 
of the Kabbalah, and ask whether it was born in Palestine, solely 
under the influence of Judaism, or, whether the Jews borrowed 
it from a foreign religion or a foreign philosophy. We shall 
compare it successively with all previous and contemporaneous 
systems which will offer us any resemblance to it; and we shall 
finally follow it to its most recent destinies, 


but one principle, the immanent cause of all that exists; the Alexandrian 
philosopher recognizes two, one active, the other passive. The 
attributes of God, according to Philo, are Plato’s ideas which have 
no resemblance whatever to the Sefiroth of the Kabbalah. 
"Eotw év toic otow, tb pév elvor Soaotnoiov alnov, to 68 xadntdv 
won Str 16 wiv SoactnoLov 6 tHv SAwv votc gotw eilixowEotatoc xoett- 
tToOVte 7 Goeth xal xgelttwv 7H Emortmun xol xoelttwv 7) adtd 1d aya- 
Bov xai adtd td xakdv 1d 88 xabdntov dapvyov xal dulvyntov gE éavtoi, 
xuvntev d€, oxnuatiodéiv xal wuxotiv td tod vot, etc. Philo, de 
Mund. opific. 


lx 


PART ONE 








CHAPTER I 


THE ANTIQUITY OF THE KABBALAH 


Enthusiastic partisans of the Kabbalah declare it to have been 
brought down by angels from heaven to teach the first man, 
after his disobedience, the way to recover his primal nobility and 
bliss.1 Others supposed that the lawgiver of the Hebrews, during 
his forty days’ stay on Mount Sinai, received it directly from God, 
that He transmitted it to seventy old men who partook with 
Him of the gifts of the ‘Holy Spirit, and that these passed it on 
by ‘word of mouth until the time when Ezra was given the order 
to transcribe it together with the Law.* But, no matter how 
carefully we may read all the books of the Old Testament, we 
shall fail to find a single word which refers to secret. teachings 
or to a. doctrine more profound and more pure, reserved solely 
for at small ‘number of the elect. 

~~ Since its origin, until its return from the Babylonian captivity, 
the Hebrew people, like all nations in their infancy, knew no 
other organs of truth, no other ministers to the mind, save the 
prophet, the priest and the poet; and in spite of the obvious 
difference among them, the latter is often confounded with the 
previous ones. Instruction was not the province of the priest, 
he simply attracted the eye by the pomp of religious ceremonies. 
And as to the teachers, those, indeed, who raise the religion to 
the rank of Science and who replace the inspirational language 
with a dogmatic strain, in short, as to the theologians, there is no 


1 See Reuchlin, de Arte Cabalistica, fol. 9, 10, ed. Hagenau. 
2 Pico de la Mirandola, Apology, p. 116 et sequ. tome I. 


63 


64 SEL ee KOA eee eee 


mention of either their name or their existence during that entire 
period. 

It is only at the beginning of the third century before the 
Christigemesxathat we first see them appear under the general 
name which means teachers of the tradition; for 
it is in the natmre~of this new power that everything, not clearly 
expressed in the Scriptures, was taught. The Tannaim, the 
oldest and most respected of all teachers in Israel, formed, as it 
were, a long chain, the last link of which is Judah the Pious, 
editor of the a collected and transmitted to posterity 
all that has been Uttéfed by his predecessors. Among these are 
the supposed authors of the oldest monuments of the Kabbalah, 
R. Akkiba and Simeon ben Yohai, with his son and his friends. 

Immediately after the death of Judah, towards the close of 
the second century of the Christian era, a new generation of 
teachers starts who are called Amaraim (D°8108 ) , because, not 
constituting any longer an authority in themselves, they only 
repeated and better explained all they learned from the previous 
ones, making known those of their words which have as yet not 
been published. “hese commentaries and new traditions, which 
multiplied prodigiously for m an~three hundred years, were 
finally united under the name Gemara » N13, i.e. termination 
and completion of the tradition.® >-therefore, in these two 
collections, religiously preserved Ere until this 
day and united under the name { Talmud,’ * Ahat we must, 
above all, search, if not for the very ideas which form the 
foundation of the Kabbalistic system, at least, for some data on 
the origin and epoch of their bitth=— nk 

In the Mishnah (Haggigah, Sec. Il) we find this remarkable 
passage: > ~“Fhe- -story~of the Creation (Genesis) is not to be 
explained to two, the story of the Merkaba (Heavenly Chariot) 







3 I believe that the root 163 in 8 9) is to be taken not in the 
biblical sense, perficit, but in the talmudical sense, didicit, docuit. & 0) 
is, accordingly, but the pure Aramaic expression for the synonym 
7)09n .—Jellinek. 

£4 s)99n, i.e. the study of the science. 


He iow sea. AoA LH 65 


not even to one, unless he be wise and can deduce wisdom of his 
own accord, PM3 133703 NP) OW MWD AwWYOS NP PWT PN 
NYT _PIorDIN}D-ORNI— 

The Talmud (Haggigah, }3a) cites a Beraitha (a Mishnah 
not Wmcluded—irthe—callectior of R. Judah), where R. Hiya 
adds: ““When the summaries of the chapters may be transmitted 
to him.” DxP1B (WNT 1 ODI 


A rabbi of the Talmud, R. Zerah (ibid) is still more severe, 
for he adds that even the summaries of the chapters may be 
divulged only to men clothed with high dignity, or® known by 
their extreme prudence; or, to translate literally the original 
expression, “who carry within them a heart full of solicitude.” 
YDIPI ANIT DY 1D 9D9) PT PD AND NON PIB WNT OMDIN PR 

Evidently this can not refer to the text of Genesis or to that 
of Ezekiel wherein the prophet tells of his vision on the banks 
of the river Hebar.® The entire Scriptures were, so to speak, in 
the mouth of everybody; from time immemorial, the most 
scrupulous observers of all the traditions have made it their duty 
to read them through in their temples at least once during the 
year. Moses himself incessantly advised the study of the Law, 
by which the Pentateuch is universally understood. After the 
return from the Babylonian captivity, Ezra read it aloud before 
the assembled people (Ezra, II, 8). It is just as impossible that 
the words quoted express the interdiction to give any interpreta- 
tion to the story of the creation and to that of Ezekiel for the 
purpose of making them comprehensible to oneself or to others; 
the question here is that of an interpretation, or rather of a 
doctrine, which, although known, was taught under the seal of 
mystery; of a science furnished with a fixed form as well as fixed 


5 | digressed here from the original text which has “et,” because 
the talmudical passage quoted by the author does not intend to refer both 
requirements to the same person. According to another variation of this 
talmudical passage, where instead of 5351 ,‘9 ini is read, the transla- 
tion of the author is justified.—Jellinek. 

6 Compare the commentaries of Rashi and of the Tosaphoth to that 
Mishnah.—Jellinek. 


66 pHi AKA b sear Dea: 


principles, since we know the manner of its division and since it 
is shown to us divided into several chapters each one of which 
is headed by a summary. 

For it is to be noted, that Ezekiel’s vision has nothing in 
common with all this, because it fills not several chapters, but 
only one, and precisely the one which is first in the works 
attributed to this prophet. Moreover, we see that this secret 
doctrine comprised two parts which have not been accorded equal 
importance; for the one part could not be taught to two persons, 
while the other could not be divulged at all, not even to one person, 
although he satisfied the severest conditions imposed upon him. If 
we are to believe Maimonides—who, although a stranger to the 
Kabbalah, could not deny its existence—the first half, entitled 
“The Story of Genesis or of the Creation” (mwsin nwyp) 
taught the science of Nature, the second half called ““The Story 
of the Chariot” (p25 nAwypy ) contained a treatise on theology.? 
This opinion was also accepted by all the Kabbalists.8 

Here is another passage wherein the same fact is presented to 
us in a no less evident manner. ‘One day R. Johanan said to 
R,. Eliezer: ‘Come, I will teach thee the story of the Merkaba.’ 
‘The latter replied: ‘I am not old enough for that.’ When he 
became old, R. Johanan died, and some time later R. Assi came 
to him and said: ‘Come, I will teach thee the story of the 
Merkaba.’ R. Eliezer answered: ‘Had I considered myself 
worthy, [ would have learned it from R. Johanan, thy Master’ ” 
(Haggiga, 12a). We see by these words that, in order to be 
initiated into this mysterious and sacred science, it was not 


7 Morah Nebuhim, pref. 72D AwYyD) ,Yayn Non NIA mMwRID aAwYD 
nexn nosn Nin 

8 That by n’wxia mvyo was understood a theory of cosmogony 
similar to that of the Zohar, is evident also from a Gemara passage 
to the quoted Mishnah. “R. Eliezer said: Adam reached primarily 
from earth to heaven; but after he sinned, the Holy One (praised be 
He!) laid his hand upon him and made him smaller. DIX T1y38 935 4p» 
NYO) YSY 9 AAA MIM MIDY 7199) Pp) WY PYINA tp hwein (Haggiga, 
fol. 12a). Compare Zohar, Part III, fol. 83b. Sec. : wnnx xpnt py15 
mpi yr) —Jellinek. 


THE KABBALAH 67 


sufficient to be distinguished by intelligence and by eminent 
position, one had to attain also an advanced age; and even when 
all these conditions, equally observed by modern Kabbalists,? were 
fulfilled, one was not always so sure of his intelligence or moral 
force to accept the burden of these formidable secrets, which were 
not absolutely without danger to the positive belief and to the 
other observance of religious law. 

Here is a curious example told by the Talmud itself, in an 
allegorical language which it afterwards explains. ‘“The teachers 
taught: Four (persons) entered the garden of delight, namely: 
ben Azai, ben Zomah, Aher and R. Akkiba. Ben Azai looked 
around and died. To him may be applied the verse of the 
Scriptures: ‘Precious! in the sight of the Lord is the death of 
his saints’ (Psalm CXVI, 15). Ben Zoma also looked around 
and lost his reason. ‘The Scriptures say of (such as) him: ‘Hast 
thou found honey, eat so much as is sufficient for thee; lest thou 
be filled therewith and vomit it’ (Prov. XXV, 16). Aher made 
ravages in the plantations. Akkiba entered in peace and came 
out in peace.”24 

This passage can not possibly be taken literally, in the sense 
that it refers to a material vision of the splendors of another 
life; for, above all, the Talmud never uses the purely mystical 
terms of the text quoted when speaking of Paradise.1* For, how 
can we admit that a man could lose either faith or reason, as 
it happened to two of this legend, if, while still on earth, he 
had become aware of the heavenly powers awaiting the elect?° 
We must, therefore, agree with the best reputed authorities of the 


9 They are not permitted to read_the Zohar or other Kabbalistic 
books before they reach the age ofCforty? 

10 According to the literal conception of this Talmudical passage, 

should have been translated by “heavy,” “heavily,” “disagreeable.” 
Compare Rashi to the same passage.—Jellinek. 

11 Tractat Haggiga, 14b. 

12 Paradise is always called ty 13 (the Garden of Eden), or the 
World to Come ( 827 591Y ); while here the word D155 (Pardes) is 
used, which the modern Kabbalists have also consecrated to their 
science. 


68 THE KABBALAH 


Synagogue, that the Garden of Delight entered by the four 
doctors, is nothing else but the mysterious science spoken of 
before ;33 a science dangerous to weak intelligences, because it 
may lead them either to insanity or to errors more fatal than 
impiety. It is this last result that the Gemara wishes to indicate 
when it says in speaking of Aher, that he made ravages in the 
plantations. It tells us that this person, so famous in Talmudic 
narrations, was before this one of the wisest teachers in Israel; 
his real name was Elishah ben Abuah, which was substituted by 
Aher to indicate the change in him.14 And, in fact, when he 
issued from the allegorical garden into which his fatal curiosity 
had led him, he became an open infidel. He abandoned himself, 
says the text, to the generation of evil,!® he lacked morals, betrayed 
his faith, led a scandalous life, and some people even accused him 
of the murder of a child. Where, really, is his first error to be 
found? Whither have his researches into the most important 
secrets of religion led him? ‘The Jerusalem Talmud plainly 
states that he recognized two supreme principles,!® and the 
Babylonian Talmud, from which we have taken the whole of 
this story, gives us to understand the same thing. It informs us 
that when Aher saw in the heavens the power of ‘Metatrony, the 
angel next to God,!7 he exclaimed: ‘Perhaps there are, far be 
it, two supreme powers.’’!§ 


13 In hac Gemara neque Paradisus neque ingredi illum ad litteram 
exponendum est, sed potius de subtili et coelesti cognitione, secundum 
quam magistri arcanum. opus currus intellexerunt, Deum  ejusque 
palabra de Dios es su escritura; y la consideracion de Dios es su 
majestatem scrutando invenire cupiverunt—; MHuittinger, Discur. 
Gemaricus, p. 97.) 

14 The literal meaning of the word Aher( nx) is another, 
another man. 

15 In the Talmud really: Ayo miacns ppsor &%’—Jellinek 

160 onvwwn ony wry syn 

17 150) is apparently composed of the two Greek words 
usta Bedvog. According to the Kabbalists, the angel who bears this 
name really presides over the world of Yetzirah, or the world of Spheres 
which comes immediately after the world of pure spirits, the world 
Beriah, called the Throne of Glory, ( 11350 ND3 ), or simply the Throne 
( §975D5}5 ). 

18 th omws vne oiser pn Rowe 


Mite CK CATB. EB ACEO ACH | 69 


We need not dwell too long upon this portion of our subject, 
for we must cite other, more significant facts; yet, we can not 
refrain from remarking that the angel, or rather the hypostasis 
called Metatron, plays a very great part in the Kabbalistic system. 
It is he, properly speaking, who governs this visible world; he 
reigns over all the spheres swinging in space, over all the planets 
and celestial bodies, as well as over all the angels who conduct 
them; for above him is nothing but the intelligible forms of the 
divine essence, and spirits, so pure, that they can not exercise 
any immediate action over material things. It has also been found 
that his name, interpreted in numbers (x73) is no less than 
the synonym of the All-Mighty.® 

"The Kabbalah is undoubtedly, as we shall soon prove, much 
further removed from dualism than from that which is nowadays 
called in a neighboring country, the doctrine of absolute identity; 
yet, is not the allegorical way in which it separates the intelligible 
essence of God and the ruling power of the world able to explain 
to us the error indicated by the Gemara? 

Our last citation, drawn from the same source, and 
accompanied by Maimonides’ reflections, will, I hope, complete 
the demonstration of this capital point, that a certain philosophy, 
a religious metaphysics was, so to speak, orally taught among some 
of the Tannaim, or the most ancient theologians of Judaism. 
The Talmud informs us that in earlier days three names were 
known as the expressions of the idea of God, namely, the famous 
tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and two. names 
foreign to the Bible. One of these two names was composed of 
twelve letters, the other of forty-two. The first, though forbidden 
to the majority, circulated freely enough inside the schools. ‘‘The 


&® I adopted here the version of Dr. Jellinek rather than that of the 
author, as coming nearer to the meaning of the original Hebrew 
text.—Transl. 

19 The word Metatron ( twpy ) like the word Shaddai ( ‘7 ) 
which is translated by “Almighty,” results in the number 314. 


70 THE KABBALAH 


wise men,” the text says, “taught it once a week to their sons 


and to their disciples.’’?° 


The twelve-lettered name was originally still more widely 
known. “It was imparted to everybody. But when the number 
of the impious multiplied, it was entrusted to the most reticent 
among the priests, and these tried to make it inaudible by the 
singing of their brethren, the priests.”*1 Finally, the name 
composed of forty-two letters was looked upon as the most holy 
of the mysteries.22 “It was taught only to the one who was 
discreet, of ripe age, neither high-tempered, nor immoderate, nor 
stubborn, and who was gentle in his associations.”*> “He who 
has been instructed in this secret,” adds the Talmud, ‘‘and guards 
it with vigilance and a pure heart, may count on the love of God 
and on the favor of men; his name inspires respect, his knowledge 
is protected against oblivion, and he finds himself heir to two 
worlds, the world we now live in and the world to come.’ 

Maimonides very ingeniously remarks that there is no name 
composed of forty-two letters in any language, and that this would 
be still more impossible in the Hebrew language where the vowels 
are not part of the alphabet. He, therefore, thought himself 
justified in concluding that theforty-two letters) formed several 
words, each one of which expressed a definite idea or a funda- 
mental attribute of the Supreme Being, and when taken all 
together, they formed the true definition of the divine essence.”® 
The statement, continues the same author, that the name just 
spoken of embraced a study in itself, and that the knowledge 
thereof was entrusted to the wisest only, undoubtedly means that, 





20 onnN DYB OF pSnt Om229 IMI DP OYA nyMIk PON iD ow 
JYiawsa 

21 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Berachoth and Maimonides, Moreh 
Nebuhim, Part I, ch. 62. 

22) wpe) wip nyms pnw oyax 132 ow Ib. supr. 

23 1298) DYID WNT WH ND WY) Puy > Noe IMIR OMDW PN 
ya py nna wa wn sy Wye 11 Inww Ib. supr. 

24 Ib. supr. 

25 Maimonides, Moreh Nebuhim. %3¥ oO 1) Onn Nispnw PED PNY 
OYN IXY WY NNOX> wp? oA DIN mAs oop 


TEE i AlB By Ast ACH 71 


in order to define the essence of God, the peculiarity of God and 
of things in general would either have to be better elucidated or 
further developed. This is surely also the case with the four- 
lettered name; for, how is it possible to suppose that a name so 
frequently met with in the Bible, and to which the Bible itself 
gives the sublime definition of “ego sum qui sum” was kept a 
secret which was imparted once a week by the wise men into the 
ears of a few chosen disciples? ‘That which the Talmud calls the 
knowledge of the names of God, concludes Maimonides, is, 
therefore, nothing but a small part of theology or metaphysics 
(mnsx nosn nyp) and it is for this reason that it has been 
said to be proof against oblivion; for oblivion is not possible to 
ideas which have their seat in active intelligence, that is, in 
reason.”6 

It would be difficult not to yield to these reflections, recom- 
mended no less by the common sense of the free-thinker, as well 
as by profound science and the generally recognized authority 
of the Talmudists.27 We shall add here one more observation, 
undoubtedly of very questionable importance in the eyes of 
common sense, but which is not valueless to the order of ideas 
which these researches bear, and which we shall be obliged to 
accept as an historical fact: By counting all the letters that 
compose the Hebrew names, the sacred, essential names of the 
ten Sefiroth of the Kabbalah, and by prefixing to the last name 
of the Sefiroth the conjunctive particle “v” (})—as it is done 
in all enumerations and in all languages—we obtain exactly the 
number 42.78 Is it not, therefore, possible to think that this is 
the thrice holy name which even to the elite of the wise men was 


26 Ib. 1. c. DDN AXtw Minox Aond | aM obo. ANANA 123) 
.oYIBN 93 Naw 979 ANSwWd WEN IN 

27 Maimonides is not only the author of the philosophic work entitled 
“Moreh Nebuhim,” he has also composed under the title of “The Strong 
Hand” (pIn 3% ) a great talmudical work which is to this day the 
indispensable manual of the rabbis. 

28 Here are the names and the figures which indicate the number of 


their letters: 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 
PSOE Lae moitalilalde tie late mints Ute teak 


he TOHsk, AKA Be Beas tans Et 


tremblingly confided? We would also find therein the full 
justification for all the remarks made by Maimonides. 

For, first of all, these forty-two letters do not really form 
one name, as usually accepted, but several words. ‘Then again, 
each one of these words expresses, in the opinion of the 
Kabbalists at least, an essential attribute of the divinity, or, what 
is the same thing to them, one of the necessary forms of existence. 
Finally, all together represent, according to the Kabbalistic science, 
according to the Zohar and all its commentators, the most exact 
definition of the supreme principle of all things that our minds 
are capable of conceiving. As such a concept of God is separated 
by an abyss from common belief, all precautions taken to prevent 
it from leaving the circle of initiates is very well understood. We 
certainly shall not insist upon this point, the importance of which, 
to say it again, we in no way exaggerate; we are satisfied for the 
moment to have shown, even to the evidence, the general result 
of the passages quoted. 

At the time, then, when the Mishnah was edited, there existed 
a secret doctrine on the Creation and the Divine Nature. ‘The 
manner of its study and division was agreed upon, and its name 
excited a kind of religious terror even among those who could 
not have known it. But, for how long had it existed? And if 
we can not determine with precision the date of its birth, is there 
any way of telling when the deep shadows formed that shrouded 
its origin? It is this question which we shall now attempt to 
answer. In the opinion of the historians most worthy of our . 
confidence, the editing of the Mishnah came to an end no later 
than the year 3949 of the creation, 189 years after the birth of 
Christ. We must also bear in mind that Judah the Holy did 
but collect the precepts and traditions transmitted to him by the 
Tannaim, his predecessors; the words cited at first by us, and 
which forbid the imprudent delivery of the secrets of the Creation 
and of the Merkaba, are, consequently, older than the book that 


29 See “Shalsheleth ha-Kabbalah, or the Chain of Tradition,” by 
R. Gedalya, p. 23b, and David Gans’ “Zemach David,” p. 23a. 


ely Wie ABB ALE ACE 73 


contains them. ‘True, we do not know the author of these words, 
but this in itself is further proof in favor of their antiquity; for, 
had they expressed the opinion of one man only, they would not 
have been clothed with legislative power, and, as is usually done 
under such circumstances, the name of the person responsible for 
them would have been mentioned. 

Besides, the doctrine itself necessarily precedes the law that 
interdicts its disclosure. It must have been known and must 
have acquired already a certain authority before the danger of 
its dissemination, not to say among the people, but among the 
doctors and masters in Israel was recognized. So, without undue 
boldness, we may date it, at least, from the end of the first 
century of the Christian era. ‘This is precisely the time when 
Akkiba and Simeon ben Yohai lived, to whom the Kabbalists 
attribute the composition of their most important and most 
celebrated works. In this generation must also be included 
R. Jose of Zippora (1683 °D)» 1) whom the Idra Rabba—one 
of the most ancient and most remarkable fragments of the 
Zohar—counts among the intimate friends and most fervent 
disciples of Simeon ben Yohai. It is evidently to him that the 
talmudic treatise, from which we have drawn the majority of 
our citations, attributes a knowledge of the holy Merkaba.®° 
Among the number of authorities who testify to the antiquity, 
if not of the books, at least of the Kabbalistic ideas, we do not 
hesitate to count the Chaldaic translation of the Five Books of 
Moses by Onkelos. 

- ‘This famous translation was looked upon with such great 
respect, that it .was regarded as a divine revelation. The 
Babylonian Talmud )(Tract. Kidushin, 49a) supposes that Moses 
received it~onm Mount Sinai at the same time when he received 
the written and oral law, that it came down to the time of the 
Tannaim by tradition, and that Onkelos received but the glory for 
transcribing it. A great many of the modern theologians have 


30 GAwispn fmasopo yt spy 74 


74 THE KABBALAH 


believed they have found in it the foundation of Christianity. 
They maintained particularly that they had recognized the second 
divine person in the word Memra ( si0"» ), which really signifies 
the “word,” or the “thought,” and which the translafor has 
placed everywhere for the name of Jehovah.*4 

This much is certain, that there rules in this translation a 
spirit opposed to that of the Mishnah, of the Talmud, of common 
Judaism, and even of the Pentateuch; in short, the traces of 
mysticism are not rare there. Whenever it is only possible or 
of particular importance, an idea is substituted for a fact or an 
image, the literal meaning is sacrificed to the spiritual meaning, 
and anthropomorphism destroyed in order to show the divine 
attributes in their nakedness. 

At a time when the worship of the dead letter degenerated 
into idolatry; at a time when men passed their lives in counting 
the verses, the words and the letters of the Law;?? at a time 
when the official preceptors, the legitimate representatives of 
religion, saw nothing better to do than to crush the intellect as 
well as the will under an always increasing mass of external 
practices, that aversion for everything material and positive, and 
the habit of often sacrificing grammar and history to the interest 
of an exalted idealism, infallibly reveal to us the existence of a 
secret doctrine which has all the characteristics and all the 
pretensions of mysticism, and which, undoubtedly, does not date 
from the day it dared to speak in a clear language. Finally, 
without attaching too much importance to it, we can not refrain 
from laying stress upon the following: We have already 
remarked, that in order to attain their aims and to introduce, in 
some manner, their own ideas into the very terms of the revelation, 
the Kabbalists resorted at times to more or less irrational means. 
One of these means, which consisted in forming a new alphabet 


31 See especially Rittangel’s commentary and translation of the 
“Sefer Yetzirah,” p. 84. 

32 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Kidushin, 30a. From this, according to 
the Talmudists, comes the word 7151D, which really means “to count,” 
but which is translated by “Scribe.” 


THE KABBALAH 75 


by changing the value of the letters, or better, by substituting 
one for the other according to a definite order, is frequently 
employed in the Talmud, and made use of in a translation older 
than the one just spoken of, namely, the Aramaic paraphrase 
of Jonathan ben Uzziel,** contemporary and disciple of Hillel 
the Aged ( ptm 957), who taught with great authority during 
the first years of the reign of Herod.*4 

To be sure, such procedures may serve equivocally the most 
diverse ideas; but men do not invent an artificial language, the 
key to which is intentionally hidden, unless they have resolved 
to hide their thoughts, if not from all, at least, from the mass of 
the people. Furthermore, although the Talmud makes frequent 
use of similar methods, yet, the one we describe and which we 
believe to be the oldest, is entirely strange to it. Taken alone, 
this last fact would undoubtedly be of small demonstrative power, 
but added to those which already occupied our attention, it ought 
not to be disregarded. If we take them all together and compare 
them with one another, we are justified in stating, that there 
spread among the Jews, before the end of the first century of 
the Christian era, a profoundly venerated science, distinct from 
the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Sacred Books,—a mystic 
doctrine engendered evidently by the need of reflection and of 


83 We refer here to the Kabbalistic alphabet called Ath Bash, 
,W2 M8, because it consists in giving to the first letter Aleph, &, the value 
of the last letter Thau, n, and again reciprocally, in replacing the second 
letter Beth, 3, by the one before the last letter of the alphabet, the 
Shin, wv, and so on with the rest. By means of this procedure the 
Chaldaic paraphrasist translates the name Sheshach, ‘ww (Jeremiah, 
LI, 41), which gives no sense, by Babel, 923, In the same manner he 
translates also ‘op 35 (ib. LI, 1) which means “the heart of my 
adversaries,’ by ow, which signifies Chaldeans. It is supposed that 
the Hebrew prophet, a captive in the empire of Babylon could not 
name it expressly when threatening it with the vengeance of heaven. 
But such a supposition becomes incomprehensible when, in the same 
chapter and under the influence of the same sentiment, the names of 
Babel and Chaldeans are often repeated. However, this translation was 
preserved by St. Jerome (see his works, 5. IV, “Commentary on the 
Book of Jeremiah”) and by Rashi. 

84 See Shalsheleth ha-Kabbalah, fo). 18, a and b, and Zemach David, 
fol. 19a, Amsterdam edition. 


76 dH Beek ALB BAGS 


independence, and I would even say, by the need of philosophy ; 
and which, nevertheless, invoked in its favor the united authority 
of tradition and Scriptures. 

The guardians of this doctrine, whom, from now on, we do 
not fear to designate by the name of ‘‘Kabbalists,” should not and 
can not be confounded with the Essenes, whose name was already 
known at a much earlier epoch, but who still preserved their 
customs and beliefs until some time under the reign of 
Justinian.25 In fact, if we refer to Josephus, (De Bello Jud., 
8, 1), and Philo, (De vita contemplativa, in his collected works), 
the only ones deserving confidence on this point, the aim of this 
famous sect was essentially a moral and practical one; it endeavored 
to make dominant among men the kind of equality and brotherly 
love which was later on taught with such glitter by the founder 
and apostles of Christianity. The Kabbalah, on the other hand, 
was, according to the oldest testimonies brought by us, entirely 
a speculative science, which claimed to unveil the secrets of the 
Creation and of the Divine Nature. 

The Essenes formed an organized society, very similar to the 
religious communities of the Middle Ages. ‘Their outer life 
reflected their feelings and their ideas, and, besides, they admitted 
into their midst all those who distinguished themselves by a pure 
life, not excepting even women and children. “The Kabbalists 
have always shrouded themselves in mysterious darkness, from 
the time of their first appearance to the time when the press 
betrayed their secret. At rare intervals, and with the greatest 
precaution, they opened their portals half-way for some new adept 
who was always chosen only from among the select minds, and 
whose advanced age warranted his discretion and wisdom. 
Finally, in spite of the all too pharasaical rigidity of their 
observance of the sabbath, the Essenes were certainly not afraid 
to reject publicly the traditions, to give Morality a very con- 
spicuous preference over Cult, and even to retain in the latter 


85 Peter Beer, part I, p. 88. 


eh hei ALB BAL ACH 77 


neither the sacrifice nor the ceremonies commanded by the 
Pentateuch. 

Like the greater number of Christian mystics, and like the 
Karmathians among the followers of. Islam, the adepts of the 
Kabbalah followed all the external practices; they were generally 
careful not to attack the tradition which they themselves invoked 
in their favor; and, as we have already noted, several of them 
were counted among the most revered doctors of the Mishnah. 
We may also add that later on they were seldom found to be 
untrue to these habits of prudence. 


CHAPTER II 
THE KABBALISTIC BOOKS 


AUTHENTICITY OF THE SEFER YETZIRAH 


We come now to the original books in which, according to 
the most wide-spread opinion, the Kabbalistic system took form 
since its birth. Judging from the titles‘ which have come down 
to us, the books were very numerous. But we shall consider only 
those which time has conserved for us, and which commend 
themselves to our attention by their importance as well as by 
their antiquity. ‘There are two of the latter kind which fully 
correspond with the conception which we can form of the “History 
of Genesis” and of the ““Holy Merkaba” according to the Talmud. 
One, entitled the “Book of Formation,” 7°¥’ “5D, contains, I 
do not say a system of physics, but such a system of cosmology 
as could have been conceived in an epoch and in a country where 
the habit of explaining all phenomena by an immediate action 
of the first cause must have stifled the spirit of observation, and 


1 The Sefer Ha-Bahir, 1°73 15D, attributed to Nehunya Ben 
Hakanah, a contemporary of Hillel the Aged and of Herod the Great, 
is frequently cited: and to this day different fragments, evidently 
spurious, are quoted as from that work. Such are also the fragments 
collected under the title of “The Faithful Shepherd,” Ssn)n® S*y5, ordi- 
narily printed with the Zohar as a commentary. Otherwise, nothing has 
remained to us but names and a few rare citations from the following 
authors frequently mentioned with the greatest respect by the Zohar: 
Rabbi Jose the Elder, 64&82D ‘DIY |; Rabbi Hamnuna the Elder, 
82D NI1IDn 1; and Rabbi Jebi the Elder, 82D °%3%» ",* 

* According to Peter Beer, part 2, p. 28, also R. Kruspedai, 
*NIBDIID “I—Jellinek. 


78 


APH sKoABeB AGL ATH 79 


where, consequently, certain general and superficial relations 
perceived in the external world, must have passed for the science 
of nature. The other is called the Zohar, 45-;, or Brightness, 
according to the words of Daniel: ‘And they that be wise shall 
shine as the brightness of the firmament.’ 

The Zohar treats more particularly of God, of spirits and of 
the human soul, in a word, of the spiritual world. We are far 
from according the same importance and the same value to these 
two works. ‘The second, much richer and much more extensive, 
but also more difficult, must, no doubt, hold the most prominent 
place; but we shall begin with the first, which seems to us to 
be the most ancient of the two. 

Talmudic texts, of which neither the sense nor the age have 
been well established, were invoked in favor of the antiquity of 
the Sefer Yetzirah. We shall pass in silence these as well as the 
legends and the controversies to which they give rise. Our 
observations will bear only upon the foundation of the book 
which we aim to make known. ‘They will suffice to make the 
character appreciable and to demonstrate the lofty origin. 

Ist. The system contained in it responds in every respect 
to the idea conveyed by the title of the book. We are assured 
of the fact by the words of the first proposition: ‘With the 
thirty-two marvelous paths of wisdom the world was created 
by the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Living, 
the Almighty, the Supreme God Who dwells in Eternity, 
Whose name is sublime and holy.” 

2nd. ‘The means employed there to explain the work of the 
creation and the importance given to numbers and to letters, 
make us understand how ignorance and superstitition abused 
later this principle; how the fables mentioned by us spread; and, 
finally, how the so-called practical Kabbalah was formed, which 
gives to numbers and to letters the power to change the course 
of nature. 

The form is simple and grave; nothing that resembles, even 


2 Daniel, XII, 3..p9m snr yar pysyawon 


80 TRHLE Ae RAE seas aed 


faintly, demonstration or argument; there are nothing but 
aphorisms distributed in fairly regulated order, but as concise as 
the ancient oracles. One striking fact is that the term which was 
later on used exclusively for the designation of the soul, is still 
used here as in the Pentateuch to designate the living human 
body. 

True, there are several words of foreign origin in the book: 
The names of the seven planets and the name of the Celestial 
Dragon, mentioned several times in the book, belong, evidently, 
to the language as well as to the science of the Chaldeans, who 
exercised an all-powerful influence over the Hebrews during the 
Babylonian captivity. But the purely Greek, Latin and Arabic 
expressions, seen in large numbers in the Talmud and in the 
more modern writings where the Hebrew language serves 
philosophy and science, are not found there. 

Now, it may be admitted as a general, and I may almost dare 
say, as an infallible principle, that all works of this nature 
wherein the civilization of the Greeks and the Arabs take no part, 
may be regarded as prior to the birth of Christianity. We surely 
admit that it would not be difficult to find vestiges of the language 
and philosophy of Aristotle in the work now under consideration, 


3 We refer here to the word Nefesh, 5). It is evident that it can 
not be applied to the soul in any of the following passages: 1, When 
it is said of those who, according to the literal meaning of the word, 
“came out of the loins of Jacob,” 35°79 °X¥8? FONYN APS AKAN wan 99, 
Genesis XLVI, 26; 2, When it is permitted to prepare on the first day of 
Passover only that which every man must eat, W170 WYDJ 932 SRY AYR NN 
p33 mwy? 9735 Exodus, XII, 16; 3, When every one is ordered to inflict 
sufferings upon himself on the tenth day of the seventh month, in 
expiation of his sins, MDYD ANID AM ov oxys AYN Rd AWN WIN 59, 
Levit. XXIII, 29. If it be true that, in designating the soul, the word 
Neshamah, ndws, is used in preference to Nefesh, yet the latter, at least, 
is never used by the Talmudists or by more modern writers to designate 
the body. All, without exception, make use of the word Guf, 433, which 
is not met with even once in the Sefer Yetzirah. 

4 These names, excepting those which designate the sun and the 
moon, do not belong to the Chaldaic language; they are a translation of 
Chaldean names. They are:73)), supposed to be Venus; 223, Mercury; 
‘Nnaw, Saturn; oY, Jupiter; ny ND, Mars; °%n, which designates the 
Dragon, is Arabic. 


THE KABBALAH 81 


and to which we attribute, without fear, this character. When, 
for instance, after the above quoted proposition of the thirty-two 
marvelous paths of Wisdom which served for the creation of 
the universe, it adds that there are also three terms: that which 
counts, that which is counted, and the very action of counting, 
translated by the oldest commentators as: the subject, the object, 
and the act of the reflection or the thought,° it is impossible not 
to recall this celebrated phrase of the twelfth book of Metaphysics ; 
the intelligence comprehends itself by grasping the intelligible, 
and it becomes the intelligible by the very act of comprehension 
and cognition; so that the intelligence and the intelligible are 
identical .® 

But it is evident. that these words were added to the text, 
for they are connected neither with the proposition which precedes 
them, nor with the one following them; they do not recur under 
any form in any other place of the book; whereas the use of the 
ten numbers and the twenty-two letters which form the thirty-two 
means applied to the creation by divine wisdom, is explained at 
great length. Finally, we can not understand how these words 
could find place in a treatise which deals with nothing but the 
relations that exist between the different parts of the material 
world. As to the difference in the two manuscripts reproduced 
in the Mantua edition, one at the end of the volume, the other 
amidst the diverse commentaries, they are far from being as great 
as certain modern critics would have us believe.? 

After an impartial and detailed comparison, it is found to be 


5 9)B°D) “BDt HDI no nbO ’33, according to the author of the 
Cuzari, Rabbi Judah ha-Levi, the three terms designate the Thought, 
the Word, and the Scriptures, which in Divinity are identical, although 
in man they are separate. (Cuzari, 4th part.) According to Abraham 
ben Dior, they relate to the subject, the object, and to the very act 
of knowledge, viv") ~=ysyw nyt, or also 23y1D1 ~SavD YY. See Abraham 
ben Dior’s commentary to the Sefer Yetzirah, p. 27a. 

6 Atrov 88 vosi 6 votcs xatd petaAnyv tod vontod; voyntdc yao 
yiyveta, tryyavov xal vodv dote tavtdv votc xai vontév. — Meta- 
physics, Book 12. 

7 See Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, vol. I. Bayle, Dictionn. crit., 
article Abraham. Moreri, same article, etc. 


82 THE KABBALAH 


based entirely upon some unimportant variants such as may be 
met with in all works of great antiquity, which suffered, by this 
very fact, during several centuries from the inattention or from 
the temerity of commentators. In fact, in both are found not 
only the same foundation and the same system considered from 
a general point of view, but also the same division and the same 
number of chapters, placed in the same order and devoted to the 
same subject matter; what is more, the same ideas are expressed 
in the same terms. But we do not find any more that perfect 
similarity in the numbers and places of the diverse propositions 
which, under the name of Mishnah, so clearly distinguish one 
from another. Here repetitions, there abbreviations; here united 
what is separated elsewhere. Finally, one appears also more 
explicit than the other, not alone in the words, but in the meanings 
as well. 

We do not know, and consequently can not cite, more than 
one passage where the last difference is visible: At the end of 
the first chapter where it is the question of enumerating the 
principles of the universe which correspond to the ten numbers, 
one manuscript very simply says that first of all comes the spirit 
of the Living God; the other adds that this spirit of the Living 
God is the Holy Spirit which is, at the same time, Spirit, Voice 
and Word.8 Doubtless this idea is of the greatest importance; 
but it is not lacking in the manuscript where it is not so clearly 
formulated. It constitutes, as we shall soon prove, the basis and 
the result of the entire system. Moreover, the Book of Formation 
was translated and explained in Arabic at the commencement of 
the tenth century, by Rabbi Saadia, a high methodical and wise 
mind, who considered it one of the most ancient and one of the 
first monuments of the human mind.® Without according any 
exaggerated value to this testimony, we shall add that all the 


8 Mantua edition, fol. 49a, ,wipm omit oynt 371) ANTDDD,. 

9 Saadia begins his Arabic preface with the following words: 
DNODON MOY WIR ONIAN YN J1DIO MINIDSN ANND ROD’ aAxnND RIM. “This 
book is called: Book of the Beginnings; it is attributed to our father 
Abraham (peace be with him).” Munk, 1. c¢. 


THE -KABBALAH 83 


commentators who succeeded him during the twelfth and 
thirteenth centuries, expressed the same conviction. 

~ Like all works of a very remote epoch, the one under 
consideration also lacks the title as well as the name of the author; 
but it closes with these strange words: ‘And when our father 
Abraham had considered, examined, fathomed and grasped the 
meaning of all these things, the Master of the Universe manifested 
Himself to him, called him His friend, and entered into an 
eternal covenant with him and his posterity. Abraham then 
believed in God, and that was counted unto him as a work of 
justice; and the glory of God was called upon him; for it is to 
him that these words apply: I have known thee before I formed 
thee in the womb of thy mother.” ‘This passage can not be 
considered as a modern invention. Wtih only a few alterations 
it exists in the two texts of the Mantua edition, and it is found 
in the oldest commentaries. It is our opinion that in order to 
give more interest to the Book of Formation, it was supposed, 
or it was desired to have others suppose, that the things contained 
in the book were precisely those observed by the first patriarch 
of the Hebrews, and which gave him the idea of a God, One 
and All-Powerful. 

There exists, besides, a tradition among the Jews, according 
to which Abraham had great astronomical knowledge, and that 
he raised himself to the idea of the true God solely by observing 
the spectacle of nature. The words quoted above, nevertheless, 
have been interpreted in a most gross material way. Abraham 
himself was taken as the author of the book wherein his name is 
mentioned with religious respect. Moses Betril’s commentary 
on the Sefer Yetzirah begins thus: “It was Abraham, our 
father (peace be upon him!) who wrote this against the wise men 
of his time who were incredulous concerning the principles of 
Monotheism. ‘This is, at least, what R. Saadia (the memory of 
the just be blessed!) believes in the first chapter of his book 
entitled ‘“The Philosopher’s Stone.” I give his own words: The 
wise men of Chaldea attacked Abraham, our father, in his belief. 


84 THE. SRTACESB ACE AcH 


Now, the sages of Chaldea were divided into three sects. The 
first sect pretended that the Universe was subject to two primal 
causes which were entirely contrary in their way of action; one 
was busy destroying what the other produced. ‘This opinion is 
that of the dualists who rest their theory on the principle that 
there can be nothing in common between the author of good and 
the author of evil. The second sect admitted three primal 
causes. As the two contrary principles, of which we have 
spoken, reciprocally paralyze each other, and as nothing can be 
accomplished in this manner, they recognized a third, deciding, 
principle. The third sect, finally, confessed no other God but 
the sun in which it recognized the sole principle of life and 
death.” (See Sefer Yetzirah, Mantua edition, p. 20, 21.) 

Notwithstanding such an imposing and universally respected 
authority, the opinion just noted has not even one adherent 
nowadays. The name of the patriarch has long since been 
replaced by that of Akkiba, one of the most fanatical champions 
of the tradition, one of the numerous martyrs of his country’s 
liberty, and one who would have been counted by posterity among 
the heroes most worthy of admiration had he played a part in 
the ancient republics of Athens and Rome. 

This other opinion is, no doubt, less improbable ae the first 
one; yet, we surely do not believe it better based. Although, 
whenever mentioning him, the Talmud represents Akkiba as an 
almost divine being, and although it ranks him even above Moses,?° 
yet he is not presented in any place as one of the luminaries of 
the Merkaba or of the science of Genesis; nowhere are we led 
to surmise that he wrote the Book of Formation, or any other book 
of that nature. On the contrary, he was positively reproached 
for not having entertained very lofty ideas of the nature of God. 
“Until when, Rabbi Akkiba,” said Rabbi Jose the Galilean to 
him, “until when will you continue to profane the Divine 


10 Babyl. Talmud, Tract, Menahoth, 29b. 


oe Ho ke ACK BAL Ai 85 


Majesty?! The enthusiasm he inspired was caused by the 
importance he accorded to the tradition, by the patience with 
which he knew how to draw from the traditions rules for all 
actions of life,!2 by the zeal with which-he taught during a period 
ot forty years, and, perhaps, also by the heroism of his death. 
The twenty-four thousand disciples attributed to him do not 
bear out the fact that the Mishnah forbade to divulge even the 
least important secrets of the Kabbalah to more than one person. 

Several modern critics have fancied that two different works 
were known under the same title “Sefer Yetzirah;’’ one attributed 
to the patriarch Abraham, has long since disappeared; the other, 
much more modern, is the one conserved for us. This opinion 
is founded upon gross ignorance. Morin, author of “Biblical 
Exercises,”?° borrowed it from a chronicler of the sixteenth century, 
who, speaking of Akkiba, said: ‘‘Akkiba is he who drew up the 
Book of Formation in honor of the Kabbalah; but there is another 
Book of Formation composed by Abraham, to which Rabbi Moses 
ben Nahman (abbreviated, Ramban), wrote a great and marvelous 
commentary.!* 

This commentary, written at the close of the thirteenth 
century, but printed in the Mantua edition several years after 
the chronicle just cited,’ evidently relates to the book now in our 
hands. Most of the expressions of the text are faithfully preserved 
therein, and it is evident that it was not read by the historian 
whose words we have cited. Besides, the first who wrote the 


11 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Haggiga, 14a. 7) °9°53n ‘oY " 19 5ON 
Om sv mwiy ANS np 

12 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Haggiga, 14a. It is said he knew how 
to deduct “heaps” of principles from the smallest particulars of the 
Biblical words. .ni35n Sy 195'n *5°N 

13 Morimus, Exercitationes biblicae, p. 374. 

14 sanw AVS) TaD wy TapN Sy My IDI N50 4bO IAN NM 
SY MBP 9973 wa Ton 7’ap9n we onnax Shal-sheleth ha-kabbalah, 
fol. 20b. 

15 The first edition of the Sefer Yetzirah is the Mantua edition 
published in 1565; while the Chronicle, just mentioned, Shalsheleth ha- 
kabbalah (The Chain of Tradition) was printed already in Imola in 
1549. 


86 eH Wee KeAT Reb eA sear EL 


name of Akkiba instead of the name of Abraham was a Kabbalist 
of the fourteenth century, Isaac de Lattes, who in his preface to 
the Zohar asked: ‘‘Who permitted Rabbi Akkiba to write the 
book which has been orally transmitted since Abraham?’’2® ‘These 
words, which we have tried to preserve faithfully, are evidently 
contrary to the distinction which we wish to destroy; and, yet, 
this distinction rests, in the last instance, on that authority only. 
So the author of the Book of Formation is as yet not discovered ; 
nor is it we who are to rend the veil which hides his name. We 
even doubt whether this is possible with the feeble elements at our 
disposal. But the uncertainty on this point to which we are 
condemned, does not always reach the propositions which we think 
to have demonstrated and which, if need be, may suffice to satisfy 


the purely philosophical interest which we must look for in these 
matters. 


16 Isaac De Lattes really combined both statements by saying: 
ne3p2 ANB] Nw ANY Awd II AIX? HD Awd? Aa py 95 Wn 9D 
WIS 9B YoY AA WenD psAywa Yn apn NA A”“Y 39S BAN 
“Who permitted R. Akkiba to write the book ‘Sefer Yetzirah’ which he 
called Mishnah and which they received by way of tradition from 
Abraham our father (peace be upon him!)? Why, again, came R. 
Moses ben Nahman, whose fame is so wide-spread, and made an 
exhaustive commentary to it?”—Jellinek. 


CuHapTeER III 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ZOHAR 


A much more lively interest, but also more serious difficulty 
follow the literary monument still to be considered by us. The 
Zohar, or the Book of Brightness, is the universal code of the 
Kabbalah. Under the modest form of a commentary on the 
Pentateuch, it touches, with absolute independence, upon all ques- 
tions of a spiritual nature, and, at times, it rises to the height of 
doctrines which even in our day the strongest intellect may be 
proud of. But it is very far from always maintaining the same 
heights. Very often it sinks to a language, to sentiments and to 
ideas which betray the lowest degree of ignorance and superstition. 
Side by side with the virile simplicity and naive enthusiasm of 
the Biblical times, we find names, facts, informations and habits 
which set us amidst an epoch of the earliest Middle Ages. 

This inequality in form as well as in thought, this fantastic 
mixture of characters which differentiate the very widely separated 
times, and, finally, the almost absolute silence of the two Talmuds, 
and the lack of positive documents until the close of the thirteenth 
century, have given rise to the most divergent opinions upon the 
origin and the author of this book. We shall present them ac- 
cording to the most ancient and the most faithful witnesses; we 
shall then attempt to judge them before rendering a decision on 
this difficult question. 

All that has been said, all that is still generally thought now- 
adays of the formation and of the antiquity of the Zohar, is 

87 


88 THE KAS BAD AH 


summed up impartially by two authors whom we have already 
cited several times. ‘The Zohar,” says Abraham ben Solomon 
Zacuto, in his ‘Book of Genealogies,”!—‘“‘the Zohar, whose rays 
illumine the world,” and which contains the most profound mys- 
teries of the Law and of the Kabbalah, is not the work of Simeon 
ben Yohai, although it has been published under his name. But it 
was edited by his disciples according to his words, and his disciples 
themselves confided the care of the continuation of their task 
to other disciples. Written as were the words of the Zohar by men 
who had lived long enough to know the Mishnah and all the 
opinions. and precepts of the oral law, they are, for that reason, 
all the more in harmony with the truth. This book was not 
discovered until after the death of Rabbi Moses ben Nahman and 
of Rabbi Asher, who knew of it.’ 

Rabbi Gedaliah, author of the famous chronicle “The Chain 
of Tradition,’ expresses his opinion on the same subject in the 
following words: ‘Toward the year five thousand and fifty of 
the Creation (1290 Christian era) there were different persons 
who claimed that all the parts of the Zohar written in the Jeru- 
salem dialect (the Aramean dialect) were composed by Rabbi 
Simeon ben Yohai, but all those written in the sacred language 
(pure Hebrew) ought not to be attributed to him. Others affirmed 
that Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, having discovered the book in 
the Holy Land, sent it to Catalonia, whence it passed to Aragon 
and fell into the hands of Moses de Leon. Finally, several people 
have thought that Moses de Leon, who was a learned man, had 
drawn all these commentaries from his own imagination, and 
that he published them under the name of Rabbi Simeon ben 
Yohai and his friends, in order to derive great benefit therefrom 


1 yon, pgs. 42 and 45. The author of that book flourished in 1492. 

2 It must be remembered that the word Zohar signifies Brightness. 

3 The first mentioned of the two renouned rabbis, after passing the 
greater part of his life in Spain, died in Jerusalem in 1300. Rabbi 
Asher flourished in 1320. 

4 ndoapn nowsw(Shalsheleth ha-Kabbalah), Amsterdam edition, fol. 
23, a and b. 


(erie KA BBA AH 89 


from the learned quarters. It is added that he acted thus because 
he was poor and crushed by burdens.’”® “As far as I am con- 
cerned,” adds the same author, “I hold that all these opinions 
are baseless, and I believe, to the contrary, that Rabbi Simeon 
ben Yohai and his pious association did really say all these things 
and many more, but it may be that they were not properly drawn 
up in those days, and after they have been dispersed in several 
portions for a long time, they were finally collected and put in 
order. ‘This is not astonishing; for it was thus that our master, 
Judal: the Pious, edited the Mishnah, the different manuscripts 
of which were at first scattered to the four corners of the earth. 
In like manner Rabbi Ashi also composed the Gemara.” 

We see by these words, to which modern criticism has not 
added much of a decisive character, that the question we are now 
considering has already been solved in three different ways. Some 
maintain, that, barring a few passages written in Hebrew—which 
do not exist nowadays in any edition or in any known manuscript 
— the Zohar pertains entirely to Simeon ben Yohai; others, just 
as exclusive in their view, attribute it to an impostor called Moses 
de Leon, and do not date it earlier than the end of the thirteenth 
or the beginning of the fourteenth century; others, finally, have 
endeavored to conciliate these two extreme opinions by supposing 
that Simeon ben Yohai contented himself with the propagation 
of his doctrine through oral teaching, and that the memories thereof 
left by him either in the minds or in the note-books of his disciples, 
were not united until several centuries after his death in the book 
in our possession to-day under the name of the Zohar. 

Considered in the absolute sense, taking the words we have 
quoted literally, the first of the two opinions is hardly worthy 


5 This is also found in the very rare Constantin edition of the “Book 
of Genealogies.” This passage, which is missing in the other editions, is 
quoted in Ari Nohem (ed. Fuerst) p. 58ff. and in Hasagoth ("389 45D 
—Sefer Raviah) by Milsahagi, p. 29a.—Jellinek 

6 There are two ancient editions of the Zohar which served as 
models for all others: the Cremona edition and the Mantua edition, both 
published in the year 1559. 


90 SH -EANRKEACB UB PANG Aw EL 


of serious refutation. Let us first look at the fact which was to 
serve as its basis and which we shall borrow from the Talmud :? 

Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Simeon were together one 
day, and near them was a certain Judah ben Gerim.® Rabbi 
Judah opened (the conversation) and said: ‘How beautiful 
are the works of this nation (the Romans). ‘They let bridges, 
markets and public baths be erected!’ Rabbi Jose kept silence; 
but Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai answered: ‘Whatever they erected 
is to their interest only. ‘They built markets to attract prosti- 
tutes: they built baths for their own pleasure; and they built 
bridges to levy taxes on.” Judah ben Gerim went out and told 
what he heard, and caused it to reach the ears of Caesar (the 
Roman government) ; and the latter rendered the following judg- 
ment: “Judah, who exalted shall be raised in dignity; Jose, 
who kept silence, shall be exiled to Cyprus ;!° Simeon, who spoke 
ill of me, shall be put to death.” Accompanied by his son, he 
(Rabbi Yohai) immediately repaired to the house of study, whither 
his wife brought him daily a loaf of bread and a bowl of water.14 
But as the proscriptive. decree became too oppressive, he said to 
his son: “Woman is light-minded, and when tortured perhaps, 
may betray us.” ‘They, therefore, left this place to hide in a 
deep cave. 

There, by a miracle, a St. John’s bread tree and a spring of 
water was created for them. Simeon and his son stripped them- 
selves of their clothes, and, buried to their necks in sand, they 


7 Babylonian Talmud, Tract. Sabbath, fol. 3b. 

8 pa in. The literal meaning of this name is “descendant of 
proselytes.’” The inference is that, according to a sentiment very 
common among the ancients, his foreign blood was the cause of his 
treason. 

9 There is a play upon words in that text: m>y:~ (sh’yaleh), 
myn?’ (yith-aleh), the one who raised (sc. laudibus), shall be raised 
(sc. dignitate).—Jellinek 

10 Josephus, d. b. j. I, 3, ch. 3. Zéx@mgts peylot tis Todvivalas 
m6Auc. —Jellinek 

11 The original has “gardienne” (overseer); but the word 1nn’25 
usually means “wife.”—Jellinek. 


AP USEIS AS reWles def ade C a 91 


passed all day meditating upon the Law. ‘Twelve years they 
thus spent in the cave, until the prophet Elijah came, placed 
himself at the entrance of the cave and exclaimed: ‘‘Who will 
announce to the son of Yohai that Caesar is dead, and that the 
proscription has been revoked?” They went forth,!* and saw 
people sow and plow. 

It is said (although not vouched for any longer by the Tal- 
mud) that during these twelve years of solitude and proscription, 
Simeon ben Yohai, aided by Eleazar his son, composed the 
renowned work to which his name is still affixed. Were even the 
fabulous details separated from the narrative, it would still be 
difficult to justify the inference drawn from it; for it is not 
told what were the results, or what was the object of the medi- 
tations, in which the two proscripts tried to forget their suffering. 
Then again, there are a multitude of facts and names found in 
the Zohar which Simeon ben Yohai, who died a few years after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, in the second century of the Christian 
era, could certainly not have known. For instance, how could 
he have spoken of the six portions into which the Mishnah is 
divided, when the latter was written nearly sixty years after his 
death ?18 How could he have mentioned the authors and the 
procedure of the Gemara which commences at the death of 
Judah the Saint, and ends only five hundred years after the birth 
of Christ?44 How could he have learned the names of vowel 





12 The story of the flight and sojourn of ben Yohai in the cave is 
represented more fully in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractat Shebuoth, ch. 
9. Midrash Rabba to Genesis Sec. Vayishlah; to Koheleth, par. 
ydia «4151N; to Esther, par. ‘nw 63, where the time of the sojourn is 
given as thirteen years. The famous Jewish archaeologist Rapaport 
had attempted to bring in accord the chronological part of this story 
with the Roman history. (See the Hebrew Year Book “Kerem Hemed,” 
Vol. 7, p. 182-185.)—Jellinek 

13 Zohar, Mantua edition, 3rd part, fol. 26—ib. fol. 29b. We 
prefer to cite the last passage in which the six treatises of the Mishnah 
are compared to the six steps of the supreme throne: *3vD ‘77D nw 
RDI? NYO ww ITN. 

14 All the terms of the Talmudic discussion are enumerated in the 
following passages: 7 099293) 1"P RT INI Nw wy OAM AX WIN 


92 THO Naa Be BPAR ASH 


" signs and other inventions of the school of Tiberias which, at 
most, can not reach back earlier than the beginning of the sixth 
century ?25 

Several critics have suggested that under the name of the 
Ishmaelites the Zohar refers to the Mohammedan Arabs who are 
so designated in all the writings published by modern Jews. The 
following passage, in fact, makes it difficult to deny that inter- 
pretation: 

“The moon is at the same time the sign of good and the 
sign of evil. ‘The full moon signifies the good, the new moon 
signifies the evil; as it holds equally the good and the evil, 
the children of Israel and the children of Ishmael have alike taken 
it as the rule of their calculations.1® If an eclipse takes place 
during the full moon, it is not a good omen for Israel; if, on the 
contrary, the eclipse takes place during the new moon (an eclipse 
of the sun), it is a bad omen for Ishmael. ‘Thus are verified the 
words of the prophet (Is. X XIX, 14): The wisdom of their 
wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall 
be hid.” But it must be noted that these words do not belong to 
the text; they have been borrowed from a much less ancient com- 
mentary, entitled “The Faithful Shepherd,” which has been slipped 
into the Zohar by the first editors, on their own authority, where- 
ever they thought to have found a gap. 

A passage even more decisive could have been found in the 
Zohar; for the following is what a disciple of Simeon ben Yohai 
pretends to have heard from the mouth of his master: ‘‘Woe 
to the moment when Ishmael was brought forth and invested 
with the sign of circumcision! For, what did the Lord do, Whose 
name be blessed? He excluded the children of Ishmael from the 
celestial union. But as they held the merit having adopted 
the sign of the covenant, He reserved for them here below a 


WIN NT TBI WAY WW NVI NT AI. MIIY 9521 nD9n 1929 Vol. III, fol. 
153a. Mantua ed. 
15 Genesis, col. 152 and 153:—Ley. 57b,—Mantua ed. Vol. I, fol. 24b. 
160 Sxypu? 702 AI psy Sew AA ww yy 3 WR RIND 


HE Kh AaB Be ACL A H 93 


portion in the possession of the Holy Land. The children of 
Ishmael are, therefore, destined to reign over the Holy Land, 
and they shall hinder the children of Israel from returning to it. 
But it shall last only until the time when the merit of the children 
of Ishmael shall be exhausted. They will then excite terrible 
wars on earth; the children of Edom will unite against them and 
war upon them, some on land, some on sea, and others near 
Jerusalem. Victory will rest now with one, now with the other; 
but the Holy Land will not be delivered into the hands of the 
children of Edom,” 

To understand correctly the sense of these lines, it is sufficient 
to know that with the name of Edom the Jewish writers (I 
speak of those who made use of the Hebrew language) designated 
first Pagan Rome, and next Christian Rome and all ancient 
Christian peoples in general. Now, as there can be no question 
here of Pagan Rome, the intention was doubtless to speak here 
of the strife of the Saracens against the Christians, and even of 
the crusades before the fall of Jerusalem. As to the prediction 
of Simeon ben Yohai, I need not tell what place it is to hold 
in our judgment. But I shall not dwell any longer upon the 
demonstration of these facts, generally known now and vyingly 
repeated by all modern critics.17 We shall add only one last 
observation which, I hope, will not be without merit for the 
conclusion which we are desirous to reach at last. In order to 
gain the conviction that Simeon ben Yohai cannot possibly be 
the author of the Zohar, and that the book is not, as has been 
maintained, the fruit of thirteen years of meditation and solitude, 
it is necessary to pay some attention to the stories which are 
almost always mingled with the exposition of the ideas. ‘Thus, 
in the fragment entitled Idra Zuta, bit NINN, of which we 





17 pyrponnnaye,3rd part, fol. 281b, Mantua ed.*See Peter Beer, 
“History of the sects in Judaism,” 2nd part, p. 50ff.—Morinus, Exercitat. 
biblic. liber II, exercit. 9—Wolf, Biblioth. hebr. 

* The place of printing and number of volumes are given wrongly. 
This book was printed in Altona in 1768 in two volumes.—Jellinek. 


94 THE KABBALAH 


hope to translate a great part, and which forms in every respect 
an admirable episode in this vast compilation, it is told that when 
near death, Simeon ben Yohai summoned the small number of 
his disciples and friends, among whom was also his son Eleazar, 
for the purpose of giving them his last instructions. 

“Thou,” he said to Eleazer, ‘‘will teach; Rabbi Abba will 
write, and my other friends will meditate in silence.”1® The 
master Yohai is seldom introduced as speaking. His doctrines 
are delivered orally by his son or his friends, who again come 
together after his death to communicate to one another what each 
one remembered of his teachings, and to enlighten themselves 
mutually on the common faith. ‘The words of the Scriptures: 
“How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell to- 
gether in unity,” were thought by them applicable to themselves.1® 
When some of them meet on the highway, their conversation 
immediately turns upon the habitual subject of their meditations, 
and some passage of the Old Testament is then explained in a 
purely spiritual sense. Here is an example taken at random from 
thousands: “Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Jose were together on a 
journey. Rabbi Judah then said to his travelling companion: 
“Tell me something from the Law, and the divine spirit will 
descend to us; for as often as man meditates upon the words of 
the Law, the spirit of God either joins him or goes before him 
to lead him’.’’2° 

Finally, as has been said before, books are also cited, of which 
only widely scattered fragments have come down to us and which 
necessarily must be considered more ancient than the Zohar. We 
translate yet the following passage which might be believed to have 
been written by some disciple of Copernic, were we not com- 
pelled, even denying its every authenticity, to date it, at least, 
from the end of the thirteenth century: ‘In the book of Hamuna 


18 yo ANY) fps) OND Ttyse 4) Sond? aor 9 199 MINGDN “Dt 
AS. sw Part III, p. 287b. 

19 Part III, fol. 59b. 

20 Part I, fol. 115b. 


Ae oer cA tis AS Ey Shee 


the Elder it is fully explained that the earth turns upon itself 
like a sphere; that some people are above, others below; that all 
creatures change their appearance to the climate of each place, 
although keeping always the same position; that certain places on 
earth are light, while others are in darkness; that some have day 
while others have night; and that there are countries where it is 
always day, or where night lasts but a few moments at least.’’?? 

It is quite evident, accordingly, that the author of the Zohar, 
whoever he may have been, had not even intended to attribute 
the book to Simeon ben Yohai, of whose death and last moments 
he tells. 

Are we, then, forced to honor an obscure rabbi of the 
thirteenth century, an unfortunate charlatan who, necessarily, must 
have devoted long years in writing it, and who yielded only to 
the cry of misery and to the hope of relieving it by such slow and 
uncertain means? Surely not! And even were we content with 
examining the intimate nature and the intrinsic value of the 
book, we shall have no trouble at all in demonstrating that this 
opinion has no better foundation than the first one. But we 
have still more positive arguments to combat it. The Zohar is 
written in an Aramean language belonging to no particular 
dialect. What scheme could de Leon have had in mind by making 
use of this idiom which was not in use in his time? Did he, as 
is maintained by a modern critic already quoted,*” desire to impart 
a semblance of truth to his fictions by making the various persons 
under whose names he wished to pass off his own ideas, speak 
the language of their epoch? But since he was in possession of 
such widespread knowledge, a fact admitted even by those whose 
opinions we combat, he must also have known that Simeon ben 
Yohai and his friends were counted among the authors of the 


21) X59Y9 NOadIND RDW) 9D NNT WN WB Nap NI BIT NIDA 
ROY PONY RonF y9N 11799 Part III, fol. 10a. 

22 Cum auctor esset recentissimus, linguaque chaldaica sua actate 
prorsus esset extincta, eamque Judaei doctiores raro intelligerent, consulto 
chaldaice scripsit, ut antiquitatem apud popularium vulgus libris suis 
conciliaret.—Morinus, Exercitatt. bibl. 1, 2, exercit. 9, ch. 5. 


96 an eA Babies arn 


Mishnah; and, although the Jerusalem dialect was probably their 
every-day language, it would have been more natural to make 
them write in Hebrew. 

Some maintain that he really did make use of this last 
language, that he did not invent the Zohar, but only falsified it 
by admixing his own thoughts, and that his imposture was soon 
discovered.22 As nothing of the kind has come down to us, 
this assertion need not occupy us any longer. Whether true or 
false, it confirms our observations. Besides, we are quite sure 
that Moses de Leon wrote a Kabbalistic book in Hebrew which 
bears the title ““The Name of God,” or, simply, “The Name,”— 
Sefer ha-Shem (own 15D). 

The work is still in manuscript, and was seen by Moses 
Cordovero.*4 From the few passages that he quotes, it is evident 
that it was a very detailed and, frequently, a very subtle com- 
mentary on some of the most obscure points of the doctrine 
taught in the Zohar. ‘The following is an example: ‘‘What are 
the different channels, i.e., the influences, the mutual relations. 
that exist between all the Sefiroth, and which channels conduct 
the divine light, or primordial substance of things, from one. 
Sefiroh to another?” Is it possible that the same man, who at 
first had written the Zohar in the Chaldeo-Syrian dialect,—be it 
to add interest by the difficulty of the language, or to make his 
thoughts inaccessible to the common people—would then consider 
it necessary to explain, to further develop in Hebrew, and place 
within reach of everybody, that which, at the cost of so much 
labor and trouble, he had hidden in a language almost forgotten 
even by the scholars themselves? Shall we say, that by such . 
means he was still more certain of putting his readers on the 
wrong scent? Indeed, it is too much trickery, too much time, 
patience and effort spent for the miserable aim which he is 


23 Besides the two historians cited above, see Bartalocci, Magna 
Bibliotheca rabbinica, Vol. 4, p. 82. 

24 Pardes Rimonim ( 3107 pw7B ), fol. 110a, Ist col. miown syw 
and nmimasyn aye 


eetis Geach Ao be br AL rAy tt 97 


accused of having placed for himself; the combinations are too 
learned and too complicated for a man who has been accused, both 
of the most stupid contradictions and the grossest anachronism. 
Another reason which compels us to consider the Zohar as 
a work much earlier than the time of Moses de Leon, and foreign 
to Europe, is that we do not find therein the least vestige of the 
philosophy of Aristotle, and that we do not meet there, even 


5 It is known, 


once, the name of Christianity or of its founder.? 
though, that Christianity and Aristotle exercised absolute authority 
in Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. How, then, 
can we admit that a poor Spanish rabbi would have written in 
those fanatical days on religious subjects, in a language which 
could not betray him, without lodging some complaint against 
Christianity, which the Talmudists and later writers attacked 
so frequently, and without being subject, like Saadia, Maimonides 
and all those who followed the same path, to the inevitable influence 
of the peripatetic philosophy? Were we to read all the com- 
mentaries on the Book of Formation which we possess nowadays, 
were we to glance at all the philosophic and religious monuments 
of that epoch and of several centuries previous, we shall find 
everywhere the language of the “Organum” and the influence 
of the Stagirite.7¢ 

The absence of this character is a fact of incontestible 
importance. We ought not to look in the Sefiroth, of which we 
shall speak at greater length later on, for any veiled imitation of 
the “Categories”; for while the latter are but of logical value, 
the Sefiroth contain a metaphysical system of the highest order. 
If the Kabbalah does have a few features resembling a system 
of Greek philosophy, it is the Platonic. Yet, it is known that the 


25 Adde quod etiam contra christum in toto libro ne minimum 
quidem effutiatur, prout in recentioribus Judaeorum scriptis pierumque 
fieri solet.—(Kabb. denud., Praef., p. 7.) 

26 Synonim for Aristotle from the name of his birthplace Stagira, 
an ancient town in Macedonia.—Transl. 


98 Te RATS BALE AGH 


same can be claimed for every kind of mysticism, and, besides, 
Plato was little known outside his fatherland. 

It is to be noted, finally, that the ideas and expressions which 
belong essentially, and which are exclusively consecrated to the 
Kabbalistic system expounded in the Zohar, are found also in 
writings of a much earlier date than the close of the thirteenth 
century. Thus, according to a writer whom we had already 
occasion to mention—Moses Botril, one of the commentators of 
the Sefer Yetzirah—the doctrine of emanation, as understood 
by the Kabbalists, was known to Saadia; for he (Moses Botril) 
cites from him the following words which, he says, are quoted 
literally from the work entitled ““The Philosopher’s Stone” which, 
it is true, is wrongly attributed to him: ‘‘Oh! thou man who 
drawest from the cisterns at the source,?” guard thyself, when 
tempted, to reveal something of the belief of the emanation, 
which is a great mystery in the mouth of all the Kabbalists; and 
this mystery is hidden in the words of the Law: ‘Thou shalt 
not tempt the Lord.’’28 

Nevertheless, Saadia, in his work on “Beliefs and Opinions” 
attacks very forcibly the doctrine which is the basis of the 
system expounded in the Zohar, and it is impossible not to recognize 
it in the following passage: “I have sometimes met men who 
can not deny the existence of a Creator, but who think that 


27 I have translated literally the French text, but it does not render 
as yet the correct meaning of the Hebrew original, although the author 
had taken notice of Dr. Jellinek’s remark to this phrase in the German 
translation. The correct and literal translation would be: “Oh, thou 
man who hath (possesses) the pools at the source...’ While the 
author failed to translate the word n13°73 (Brihoth) in the first edition, 
he omitted the translation of the word ‘\pp3 (B’moker) in the second 
edition. i373 (Brihoth) is the plural of 43°93 (Briho), and means 
“pool” or “pond,” and 1:1? (Moker) means “source.” So also further’ 
on in the same sentence the author erronously translates 71D 17%) with 
“un autre mystére” (another mystery), while it should be rendered with 
“and this mystery ... ”’—Transl. 

28 Here is the Hebrew text: .1)p62 myD73n 39 wy DIND Nin ANN 
TW YN SNF NIPXO W1DID FD Rw PIRD O8 WI Aw BXYXn KS 
Sefer Yetzirah, % NX DIN RX AMIND Dipd WoO int) oo31PHN 95 BI Sy 
Mantua ed. fol. 31. 


pelie tee Wear br bration Ay TH go 


our mind can not conceive that a thing could be made from 
nothing. Now, as the Creator is the only Being who was in 
existence at first, they maintain that he drew everything from 
his own substance. “Those men (may God keep you from their 
opinion!) have still less sense than all those of whom we have 
spoken.’2? “The meaning we give to these words becomes still 
more evident when we read in the same chapter that the belief 
to which they allude is especially justified in the book of Job:?° 
“Whence then cometh wisdom, and where is the place of under- 
standing? . . . God understandeth the way thereof, and He 
knoweth the place thereof.” (Job, XXVII, 20 and 23.) 

We find here, in fact, the names consecrated by the Zohar 
to the first three highest®! Sefiroth which comprise all the others, 
and which are: Wisdom, Intelligence, and above them the Place, 
or the No-Thing (non-ens),?* so called because it represents the 
Infinite, without attribute, without form, without any qualification, 
a state devoid of all reality, and therefore incomprehensible to us.?? 
It is in this sense, say the Kabbalists, that all that is was drawn 
from No-Thing. The same author gives us also a psychological 
theory identical with that attributed to the school of Simeon 
ben Yohai ;*4 and he tells us®® that the dogma of pre-existence and 
of transmigration of the soul, which is distinctly taught in the 


29 pnw 99p NF P’Ys AwWIYI wns oOnD fn] NP WINN Ads INnRYDY 
WONT RWAD ON WD WTA PRY 95) WID ) WWI AYN |Aniawnyd DS 
Beliefs and .O21WNI0 1D OOD IN OND TON TON) IY ID OIA N12 5 
Opinions, Part I, ch. 4. 

80 Here too I must contradict the author. These passages from 
Job are not expounded by the adherents of the doctrine of emanation, 
but by the Atomists, who are quoted by Saadia before the others.— 
Jellinek. 

81 See my previous remark.—Jellinek 

82 In the Hegelian terminology, the Absolute-Negative which, when 
conceived in its abstract, is identical with the No-Thing.—Jellinek 

88 Zohar, 2nd part, fol. 42 and 43. This first Sefiroh is sometimes 
called the Infinite, n1p t'% (Ayn Sof), sometimes the Supreme Crown, 
oy n> (Kether Elyon), and sometimes the No-Thing, '& (Ay-yin), 
or the Place, nipo (Mokom). 

34 Beliefs and Opinions, Part VI, ch. 2. 

85 Ibid., ch. II. 


100 on KAS Gb eA er 


Zohar,°® was accepted in his days by several men who, neverthe- 
less, called themselves Jews, and who, he adds, confirmed their 
extravagant opinion by the testimony of the Scriptures. Nor is 
this all. St. Jerome, in one of his letters,?” speaks of ten mystical 
names, decem nomina mystica, by which the sacred books desig- 
nated the Divinity. Now, these ten names which St. Jerome not 
- only mentions, but of which he gives the full enumeration, are 
precisely the same which represent in the Zohar the ten Sefiroth 
or attributes of God. 

The following is what we really read in the Book of Mys- 
tery (Sifra D’Zeniuta— xniy yt xIpD), one of the most ancient 
fragments of the Zohar, and, at the same time, a resume of the 
highest principles of the Kabbalah: “When man wishes to address 
a prayer to the Lord, he may invoke either the holy names of 
God: Eh-yeh, Jehovah, Yah, El, Elohim, Yedoud, Elohei-Zebaot, 
Shaddai, Adonai, or the ten Sefiroth, namely: the Crown, Wis- 
dom, Intelligence, Beauty, Grace, Justice, etc.’’ All Kabbalists 
agree on the principle that the ten names of God and the ten 
Sefiroth are one and the same. For, they say, the spiritual part 
of the names of God is the very essence of the divine numbers.** 
In several of his writings, St. James speaks also of “‘certain Hebrew 
traditions on Genesis” which attribute to Paradise, or, as is always 
called in Hebrew, Gan Eden (ty })), a greater antiquity than 
that of the world.®? 

Let us note first, that among the Jews there were no other 
traditions of an analogous title known, than those contained in the 
mysterious science called by the Talmud the “History of Genesis.” 


36 Part II, fol. 99, sec. Mishpatim. 

37 Hieron, ad Marcell., epist. 136, Vol. III, in his collected works. 

38 mvp wep oF niown mont 9D Ink 937 39m nyo Nipw its 
Pardes Rimonim, fol. 10, I. 

39 Hieron., last volume of the Paris edition; see also the little work 
entitled “Questiones hebraeicae in Genesim.” The traditions of Genesis 
are the Hebrew book of Little Genesis, or the Book of Jubilees which, 
no doubt, states the opinion of the Talmud that among things created 
before the world was also the Eden. 


¢ 


aHer PY SKSAL Be ALL AnH 101 


As to the belief of those traditions, it is in perfect harmony with 
the Zohar, where the Supreme Wisdom, the Divine word by which 
creation was begun and accomplished, the principle of all intelli- 
gence and of all life, is designated as the true Eden, otherwise 
called the Higher Eden (Eden E-lo-oh; pxdy pty ).4° 

But a fact more important than all the facts hitherto noted, is 
the intimate resemblance offered by the Kabbalah, in language as 
well as in thought, with the sects of Gnosticism, chiefly those 
brought forth in Syria, and with the religious code of the Naza- 
rene which was discovered a few years ago, and translated from 
the Syrian into Latin. We shall postpone the proof of this fact 
to that part of our work where we shall investigate the relation- 
ship between the Kabbalistic system and the other religions or 
philosophical systems. Here we shall only point out that the 
doctrines of Simon the Magician, Elcsaite, Bardesanes and 
Valentine, are known to us only by fragments scattered through 
the works of a few of the Fathers of the Church, as in those of 
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Now, we can not suppose 
that those works were familiarly known to a rabbi of the thir- 
teenth century, who, even in the very work with the authorship 
of which some wish to honor him, proves to be quite a stranger 
to any literature, and especially to that of Christianity. We are, 
therefore, forced to admit that Gnosticism borrowed a great deal, 
if not precisely from the Zohar as we know it today, at least 
from the traditions and from the theories contained therein. 

We shall not separate the hypothesis which we just refuted 
from the one which presents to us the Kabbalah as an imitation 
of the mystic philosophy of the Arabs, and dates its birth some 
time during the reign of the caliphs, at the earliest, near the 
beginning of the eleventh century, at the epoch when the philo- 
sophy of the Mussulmans first showed traces of mysticism.*4 This 


40 Zohar, Idra Zutah. S9PN 9871 TINY 935 8952 DXDINO ANSY ASN 

sTINOY PI 

41 Avicenna is generally considered the first expositor of mysticism 
among the Arabs. He was born in 992 and died in 1036. 


102 HBR KA BB AL Anh 


opinion, long ago expressed as a mere conjecture in the Mémoires 
de l’Academie des Inscriptions (Memoirs of the Academy of 
Inscriptions) 42 has recently been rescusciated by Mr. Tholuck, 
who lent to it the support of his rich erudition. In a preliminary 
memoir in which he investigated the influence the Greek philo- 
sophy may have exercised over the philosophy of the Mahom- 
medans,*® the learned orientalist comes to the conclusion that the 
doctrine of the emanation was known to the Arabs simultaneously 
with Aristotle’s system; for the latter reached them through the 
commentaries of Themistius, Theon of Smyrna, Aeneus of Gaza 
and Johann Philoponus, in short, with the ideas of Alexandria, 
expressed, surely, in a very incomplete form. ‘This germ, once 
deposited in the breast of Islamism, developed rapidly into a vast 
system which, like the system of Plotinus, raised enthusiasm 
above reason, and, after making all beings spring from the divine 
substance, proposed to man, as the last step of perfection, a reunion 
with it through ecstasy and annihilation of self. 

It is this, half Arabic, half Greek mysticism, that Tholuck 
would have us admit as the true and only source of the 
Kabbalah.44 To that end he begins by attacking the authenticity , 
of the Kabbalistic books, above all, that of the Zohar, which he 
regards as a compilation dating from the end of the thirteenth 
century, although he accords greater antiquity to the Kabbalah 
itself.4° After having established this point beyond doubt, as he 
believes, he undertakes to demonstrate the close resemblance of the 
ideas contained in those books to those which form the substance 
of Arabian mysticism. Mr. Tholuck has advanced no argument 
against the authenticity of the Kabbalah which we have not 
already refuted; we shall stop only at the last and, undoubtedly, 


42 “Remarks on the antiquity and origin of the Kabbalah,” by 
de la Nauze, vol. IX of the memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions. 

43 Commentatio de vi quam graeca philosophia in theologiam tum 
Muhammedanorum, tum Judaeorum, exercuerit. Particula I, Hamb., 
1835, 4to. 

44 Particula II, de Ortu Cabbalae, Hamb., 1837. 

45 Work cited, part II. 


THE KABBALAH 103 


the most interesting part of his work. But here we are forced 
to anticipate somewhat and enter into the very foundation of the 
Kabbalistic system and into some consideration bearing upon its 
origin. We shall not complain if this will give us some diversion 
from the rather dry research which occupies us at this moment. 

The first thought which presents itself to the mind is, that 
the similarity between the Hebrew and the Arabic ideas, even 
if perfectly established, nowise concludes that the first ones are 
necessarily counterfeits of the latter. Is it not possible that both 
departed, by different channels, though, from one common source, 
much older than the Mussulman philosophy, much older even 
than the Greek philosophy of Alexandria? And Mr. Tholuck 
must really admit that, as far as the Arabians are concerned, they 
knew the philosophy of Alexandria not at all from its real sources. 
The works of Plotinus, of Jamblicus and of Proclus never reached 
them, and none of these had ever been translated either into 
Arabic or Syrian; and of the works of Porphyrius, they 
possessed only a purely logical commentary: the introduction to 
the treaties of the Categories.*® 

On the other hand, is it probable that at the time of the 
Mussulman invasion no trace was left of the ideas of ancient 
Persia and of the philosophy of the Magi, so famous throughout 
antiquity under the name of the “Wisdom of the Orient;” and 
that they took no part in the intellectual movement which made 
the reign of the Abbassides so famous ?47 We know that Avicenna 
wrote a book on the “Oriental Wisdom.” By what right, then, 
dare some affirm, upon the strength of a few rare citations of 
a more modern author, that this book was but a collection of 
Neoplatonic thoughts ?4% 

When Mr. Tholuck directs our attention to the following 


46 Tb. supr., Part II, p. 7-11. 

47 Califs of Bagdad, members of the dynasty of the Abbassides, 
founded by Abbas, an uncle of Mohammet, and which lasted from 750 
until 1258, when it was overthrown by the Mongolians.—Transl. 

48 Work cited, part I, p. 11. 


104 SCH Pie CKRMARE eevee Anse 


passage of Al Gazzali:* ‘Know, that between the physical world 
and the one of which we just spoke, there exists the same 
relation as between our shadow and our body,’’4® how is it that 
he does not remember that the Zerdustians, members of one of 
the religious sects of ancient Persia, used those same terms and 
the same comparison to formulate the fundamental principle of 
their belief ?°° : 

As to the Jews, the whole world knows that from the time 
of their captivity until the time of their dispersion they 
continued their relations with what they called the land of 
Babylon. We will not dwell upon this point which is to be 
considered at length later. We will only say that the Zohar 
positively quotes the Oriental Wisdom: ‘That wisdom,” it says, 
“known to the children of the East since the first days,’®! and 
from which it cites an example in perfect accord with its own 
doctrines. It is evident that the reference here made has no 
bearing upon the Arabians whom the Hebrew writers invariably 
call “the children of Ishmael,” or ‘the children of Arabia.” <A 
contemporaneous foreign philosophy, a recent product of the 
influence of Aristotle and his Alexandrian commentators, could not 
have been spoken of in such terms; the Zohar would not have 
dated it from the first ages of the world, nor would it have 
presented it as a legacy transmitted by Abraham to the children of 
his concubine, and by those to the nations of the Orient.®? 

But we need not make use even of this argument, for the 
truth is that Arabic mysticism and the principles taught in the 
Zohar strike us by their differences rather than by their similari- 


@ Al-Ghazzali (Ghazzali Abu Hamid Mohammed ibn Mohammed 
Al—); Arabian theologian and moralist. 1058-1111.—Transl. 

49 “Jam vero mundi corporalis ad eum mundum de quo modo 
diximus, rationem talem, qualis umbrae ad corpus hominis, esse 
SCHOO is 6 st PLD. BUD Le Dek: 

50 See Thom. Hyde, de Relig. vet. Pers., ch. XXII, p. 296, et seq. 

ol SIDR} DIP 33 7D WAT PIINO NNO WA NRIVIVR TW NOY NIX 7 WOR 
PROW YD PPD WAT Xn xp 5 Ist part, sect. Vayero, fol. 99b. 

52 Ib. supr., fol. 100 a and b. 


THE’ KABBALARH 105 


ties. While these bear exclusively upon a few general ideas, 
common to all species of mysticism, the others cast a glow mainly 
upon the most essential points of the metaphysics of both systems, 
and leave no room for doubt that they were of different origins. 
Thus, to bring out the most important of the differences, we draw 
attention to the following: The Arabian mystics, recognizing 
in God the unique substance of all things and the immanent cause 
of the universe, teach that He reveals or manifests Himself under 
three different aspects: Ist, in the aspect of unity or of absolute 
being, in the heart of which there rests as yet no distinction; 
2nd, the aspect in which the objects of which the universe is 
composed begin to differentiate themselves in their essence and in 
intelligible forms, and to show themselves as present before the 
divine intelligence. The third divine manifestation is the 
universe itself, it is the true world, God become visible.®# 
The Kabbalistic system is far from showing such simplicity. 
‘True, it also presents to us the divine substance as the unique sub- 
stance, the inexhaustible source from which all life, all light and 
all existence flow eternally; but instead of three manifestations, 
three general forms of the Infinite Being, it recognizes at once 
ten, the ten Sefiroth which divide themselves into three 
trinities, and then unite in one single trinity and one Supreme form. 
Considered as a whole, the Sefiroth represent only the first degree, 
the first sphere, of existence, that which is called the world of 
Emanation. Below these there are still to be found, each apart 
and offering an infinite variety—the world of Pure Spirit, or the 
world of Creation; the world of Spheres or of the intelligences 
directing them, called the world of Formation, and finally, that 
lowest degree called the world of Work, or the world of Action.®4 
The Arabian mystics recognize also a collective soul, from 


53 Tholuck, work cited, part II, p. 28, 29. 

54 I trust to render welcome service to some reader by giving here 
the names of the four worlds in the original language. They are: 
Azilah (794%), Bre-ah (e703), Yetzirah (my) ), Assiyah 
( mvy ) —Jellinek 


106 THE KABBALAH 


which all the world animating souls emanate, a genorating spirit 
whom they call the Father of Spirits, the Spirit of Mohammed, 
the source, model and substance of all the other spirits.®® 

An attempt has been made to find the pattern of the Adam 
Kadmon, the Celestial Man of the Kabbalists in this thought. 
But what the Kabbalists designate by that name is not only the 
principle of intelligence and of spiritual life, but it is also some- 
thing which they regard as above and as below the spirit; it is 
the totality of the Sephiroth, or the world of Emanation in its 
entirety, from the Being in His most abstract and most intangible 
character, the degree called by them the point or the non-being, 
to the constituent forces of nature. Not a trace of the idea of 
metempsychosis, which holds so important a place in the Hebraic 
system, can be found in the beliefs of the Arabians. In vain do 
we also search in their works for those allegories met with in 
the Zohar; for that constant appeal to tradition, for those bold 
personifications which multiply by endless genealogies—genealogiis 
interminatis—as St. Paul says,°® and for those gigantic and 
fantastic metaphors which are so well compatible with the spirit 
of the ancient Orient. 

At the end of his work, Tholuck himself, whose frankness 
equals his science, retreats from the thought which first misled him, 
and concludes, as we also may conclude, that it is entirely impos- 
sible to consider the Kabbalah as derived from the mystic philosophy 
of the Arabians. However, let us give his own words, which 
hold authority as coming from the mouth of a man profoundly 
learned in the philosophy and in the language of the Mussulman 
people: ‘What can we conclude from the analogies? Very little, 
to my mind. For, whatever is alike in the two systems, will also 


55 Ib., p. 30. 

56 It is quite difficult not to refer to the Kabbalah the following 
passage of the first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy: ‘“Neque intenderint 
fabulis at genealogiis interminatis, quae quaestiones praestant magis 
quam aedificationem Dei.” (Neither give heed to fable and endless 
genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which 
is in faith.) Epist. ad Timoth. I, 4. 


pore ane Ae bebeAcl. ATH 107 


be found in the more ancient doctrines, in the books of the Sabeans 
and the Persians, and also among the neo-platonians. On the 
contrary, the extraordinary form under which those ideas appear . 
in the Kabbalah is entirely strange to the Arabian mystics. Besides, 
in order to make sure that the Kabbalah really derived from the 
contact with the latter, it would be necessary, first of all, to find 
the Sefiroth among them. But not the least trace of the Sefiroth 
can be found among the Arabians; for they knew only one mode 
under which God revealed Himself. On this point, the Kabbalah 
comes much nearer to the doctrine of the Sabeans and to 
Gnosticism.”>? . . . The Arabic origin of the Kabbalah once 
proved inadmissible, the other theory, which makes of the Zohar 
a work of the thirteenth century, loses the last support. I shall 
speak of a certain air of probability of which this theory may still 
boast. As already evidenced by the parallel which we have 
established, the Zohar really contains a highly important and 
widely embracing system. A conception of such a nature is not 
formed in one day, especially in an age of ignorance and blind 
faith, and with a class of people groaning under the heavy burden 
of contempt and persecution. And so, as we can not find any of 
the antecedents or elements of the system of the Kabbalah in the 
Middle Ages, we must look for its origin in an earlier antiquity. 

We have come now to those who say that Simeon ben Yohai 
really taught the metaphysical and religious doctrine (which forms 
the basis of the Zohar) to a small number of disciples and friends, 
among whom was his son; that these lessons, though transmitted 
at first by word of mouth as inviolable secrets, were edited little 
by little; and that these traditions and notes, to which commen- 
taries of more recent time were necessarily added, accumulated 
and, therefore altered in time, finally reached Europe from 


57 “Jam vero ex analogiis istis quid censes colligi posse? Equidem 
non multa arbitror. Nam similii etiam et in aliis antiquoribus quidem 
disciplinis monstrari licet, in scriptis Sabaeis et Persicis, nec non apud 
neoplatonicus, Contra singularis illa forma quam ideae istae in Cabbala 
prae se ferunt, ab Arabicis mysticis abest,” etc. 


108 THE KABBALAH 


Palestine towards the close of the thirteenth century. We hope 
that this opinion, until now expressed with timidity and as a 
conjecture, will soon acquire the character and the rights of 
certainty. 

This opinion, above all, is in perfect accord, as we already 
noted by the author of the chronicle “Chain of Tradition,” with 
the history of all the other religious monuments of the Jewish 
people. The Mishnah, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds 
were also made up by joining the traditions of different ages and 
the lessons of different teachers, held together by a common 
principle. It agrees no less with a belief which, according to the 
historian just cited, must be quite old. “I have learned from tradi- 
tion,” says the author, “that this work was so voluminous, that 
when complete, it would have made up a camel’s load.”°® Now, it 
can not be supposed that one man, had he even spent his whole life 
in writing on such matters, could have left such deferring proof 
of his productiveness. Finally, we read in the Supplements of the 
Zohar, (Tikun ha-Zohar—  nrn oypn ), which are written in 
the same language, and known just as long as the Zohar itself, 
that the latter will never be entirely published, or, to translate 
more faithfully, that it will be disclosed at the end of the days.5® 

If we now examine the book itself for the purpose of searching 
therein, without prejudice, for some light on its origin, we must 
soon notice, by the inequality of style®® and lack of unity, not 
in the system, it is true, but in the exposition, method, application 
of general principles and, finally, in the consideration of details, 
that it is utterly impossible to ascribe it to one person. Not to 
multiply unimportant examples, and not to insist upon facts of 
language which no translation can preserve—just as.it is impos- 


58 myn INN 15D R¥OI TN OXw Non $172 19 99 TaN Aw AB Sy wNd5p) 
993 nxwo Shalsheleth ha-Kabbalah, fol. 25b. 

59 SON TIM Tian 9D Asan’ Now SAM oPw rn | FIOD AIRY 
.o9p7 HDI Ib. supr. 

60 In that work we find some passages written almost entirely in 
Aramean; and other passages where only the terminations of that 
language are used with words belonging entirely to rabbinical Hebrew. 


THE KABBALAH 109 


sible to tear certain plants from their native soil without killing 
them—we shall limit ourselves to indicating rapidly the different 
principles which separate three fragments already mentioned from 
the rest of the work, namely, “The Book of Mystery,” Sifra 
d’Zeniuto—NNiy2387 NIB, generally considered as the most 
ancient; “the Great Assembly,” Idra Rabba—nan 158, where 
Simeon ben Yohai is shown in the midst of all his friends; and, 
finally, “&he Lesser Assembly,” Idra Zutah—xuyit Xi5N, where 
Simeon, on his death-bed after having been preceded to the 
grave by three of his disciples, gives his last instructions to the 
surviving. 

These fragments which, because of the great distance between 
them, seem to us at first sight lost in this immense collection, 
form, nevertheless, a perfectly co-ordinated whole in the progress 
of events as well as in the ideas. We find there, now in allegorical 
form, now in metaphysical language, a consecutive and pompous 
description of the divine attributes, of their different manifesta- 
tions, of the manner in which the world was formed, and of the 
relations between God and man. Never are there the heights of 
speculation left to descend to the external and practical life, to 
recommend the observation of the Law or the ceremonies of 
religion. Never can we find there a name, a fact, or even an 
expression which could make us doubt the authenticity of these 
pages in which originality of form enhances the value of the 
lofty thoughts. 

It is always the teacher who speaks, and who uses no other 
method but that of authority to convince his listeners. He does 
not demonstrate, he does not explain, he does not repeat what 
others have taught him; but he affirms, and every word spoken 
by him is received as an article of faith. ‘That character is espe- 
cially noticeable in the “Book of Mystery,” which is a substantial, 
though very obscure, summary of the entire work.®1 It may be 


61 With reference to this book, which forms a complete treatise in 
five chapters, the Zohar gives the following graceful allegory: Let us 


110 TORE SK Ab yb evel 


said of it also: decebat quasi auctoritatem habens (He taught as 
though he had authority). 

The mode of procedure in the rest of the book is different. 
Instead of continued exposition of one order of idea, instead of a 
freely conceived plan persistently followed, in which the sacred 
texts invoked by the author as testimony follow his own thoughts, 
we find there the incoherent and disorderly course of a commen- 
tary. The exposition of the Holy Scriptures is, nevertheless, a 
mere pretext, as we have already remarked; but, it is no less true 
that, without entirely leaving the same circle of ideas, we are 
often led by the text from one subject to another. ‘This gives 
rise to the thought, that the notes and the traditions preserved in 
the school of Simeon ben Yohai were, according to the spirit of 
the times, adjusted to the principal passages of the Pentateuch 
instead of being fused into a common system according to a logical 
order. We are strengthened in this opinion, when we take the 
trouble to assure ourselves that there is often not the least connec- 
tion between the Biblical text and the part of the Zohar which 
serves it as a commentary. 

The same incoherence, the same disorder prevail in the facts 
which, for the rest, are few in number and of uniform character... 
Here metaphysical theology no longer reigns in absolute 


picture to ourselves a man who lives alone in the mountains and who 
knows nothing of the ways of the city. He sows wheat, and eats nothing 
but wheat in its natural state. One day that man goes into the city. 
They give him a loaf of bread of good quality, and he asks: “What 
is this good for?” ‘They answer him: “It is bread to eat.” He takes 
it and eats it with pleasure. Then he asks again: “What is it made 
of??? They answer that it is made of wheat. Some time after that they 
give him a cake kneaded with oil. He takes it, then he asks: “And 
this, what is it made of?” They answer him—“Of wheat.” Somewhat 
later they set before him royal pastry kneaded with oil and honey. He 
asks the same question. —Then he says: “I am master of all these things. 
I taste them in their root, since I nourish myself from the wheat of 
which they are made.” Because of this thought he remains a stranger 
to the delights that men find in eating, and those delights are lost to 
him. It is the same with the one who halts at the general principles of 
science; for he is ignorant of all the delights that are drawn from 
those principles. 


THE KABBALAH 111 


sovereignity; but, side by side with the boldest and the most 
elevated theories, all too often we find the most material details 
of the external cult, or those puerile questions to which the 
gemarists, similar therein to the causuists of all other beliefs, con- 
secrated so many years and so many volumes. Here are assembled 
all the arguments which modern critics have brought forward in 
favor of the opinion common to them, and which we believe we 
have just proved to be false. Everything, finally, the form as 
well as the background in this last portion of the book, bear the 
traces of a more recent epoch; while the simplicity, the naive and 
credulous enthusiasm which reign in the first portion, often remind 
us of the time and language of the Bible. 

Not to anticipate, we can cite but one example from there: 
the story of the death of Simeon ben Yohai as told by Rabbi Abba, 
the disciple whom he charged with the editing of his teachings. 
We shall attempt the translation. “The holy light (so Simeon 
was called by his disciples), the holy light had as yet not finished 
this last phrase, when his words stopped, and yet I continued to 
write. I had expected to write a long time yet, when I heard 
nothing more. I did not lift my head, for the light was too 
strong to look at. Suddenly I was violently agitated, and I 
heard a voice crying ‘Long days, years of life and of happiness 
are now before thee.’ ‘Then I heard another voice which said: 
‘He asked for life of thee, and thou hast given him eternal years.’ 
During the entire day the fire did not leave the house, and no 
one dared come near him because of the fire and the light which 
surrounded him. All that day I lay stretched upon the ground, 
and I gave free course to my lamentations. When the fire 
departed, I saw that the holy light, the saint of saints, had 
departed from this world. He was stretched out there, lying on 
his right side, with a smiling face. His son Eleazar arose, took 
his hands and covered them with kisses; but I would have gladly 
eaten the dust that his feet had touched. “Then all his friends 
came to weep for him, but none of them could break the silence. 


112 THE KABBALAH 


But at last their tears ran. Rabbi Eleazar, his son, fell upon 
the ground three times, unable to utter but these words: ‘My 
father! My father!’ Rabbi Hiah was first to rise on his feet, 
and said these words: ‘Until today the holy light has not ceased 
to give us light and to watch over us; now we have nothing left 
to render him but his last honors.’ Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi 
Abba arose to put upon him his death garments; then all his 
friends met in tumult around him and from all the house exhaled 
perfume. He was stretched upon his bier, and none but Rabbi 
Eleazar and Rabbi Abba took part in that sad duty. When the 
bier was carried away, they saw him on high and a brilliant light 
shone before his face. “Then they heard a voice which said: 
‘Come and assemble to the nuptial feast of Rabbi Simeon!’ .. . 
Such was Rabbi Simeon, son of Yohai, for whom the Lord gave 
glory to Himself each day. In this world and in the world to 
come his part is lovely. Of him it was written: ‘But thou go 
thy way toward the end, and thou shalt rest in peace, and arise 
again for thy lot at the end of the days’.’”’® 

We do not want to exaggerate the value which these words 
may add to the observations that precede them; but they give. us 
at least an idea of the character attributed to Simeon by his 
disciples, and of the religious homage which his name inspired 
in the entire Kabbalistic school. 

A more evident proof in favor of the opinion that we are 
defending will be doubtless found in the following text which we 
have nowhere seen cited, although it is to be found in every 
edition of the Zohar, in the oldest as well as in the most modern. 
After distinguishing two kinds of doctors, those of the Mishnah, 
mw “xp, and those of the Kabbalah, Sap sy, it is added: 
“Tt is of these latter the prophet Daniel spoke when he said: 
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firma- 
ment. ‘They are those who occupy themselves with this book 
which is called the Book of Brightness, which, like the ark of 


62 Zohar, part III, fol. 296b, Mantua edition. 


etic | sKSASD IBA LAA TH 113 


Noah, takes in two of a city and seven of a kingdom; but some- 
times there is but one of the same city, and two of the same family. 
It is in them that the words are fulfilled: Every male shall be 
cast into the river. Now, the river®* is none other than the 
light of this book.’®* These words form a part of the Zohar, 
and yet it is evident that the Zohar was already in existence 
at the time when they were written; it was even known under the 
name it now bears. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion 
that it developed gradually during the course of several centuries, 
and by the labor of several generations of Kabbalists. 

Here is the substance—as the translation would require too 
much space—of another passage very precious in all respects, and 
by which we want to show especially that long after the death of 
Simeon ben Yohai his doctrine was preserved in Palestine where 
the master lived and taught, and that emissaries were sent from 
Babylon to collect some of his words. One day when Rabbi Jose 
and Rabbi Hezekiah were travelling together, the conversation 
turned upon the verse of Ecclesiastes: “‘For that which befalleth 
the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; 
as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one kind 
of spirit.”®5 The two doctors could not comprehend that king 
Solomon, the wisest of men, had written those words which, if I 
may use the original expression, are an open door for those who 
have no faith.°® While reasoning thus, they were accosted by a man 
who, fatigued by a long voyage and a hot sun, asked them for 
water to drink. They gave him wine,® and led him to a spring 


63 Notice should be taken here of the phonetic similarity of these 
two words: 7)’ (Y’oroh)—into the river, and 771% (Oroh)—her 
light.—Jellinek 

64 FA) NDND WORT WI IBD UPR NT WD PSTN RPT IR pO 
N35 AMBWED Dvd WYP INN Ps0td) Knipp Yaw) Wyo o3y Aa mwionyst 
NT NOT TUR NT wD swN ANT 1159 13m 9D Opn’ Part III, fol. 153b. 

65 Eccles., III, 19. 

66 Part III, fol. 57b. M92 NonwR nao MH 223 INST 199d NNNB NAT 

67 The text reads “L’eau” (the water) which is wrong. The first 
edition reads “vin” (wine) which is the correct translation of the 
original.—Transl. 


114 THE KABBALAH 


of water. As soon as he felt refreshed, the stranger told them 
that he was one of their co-religionists, and that through the 
mediation of his son, who devoted his entire time to the study of 
the Law, he was initiated into this science. “The question which 
occupied them before his arival was then submitted to him. 

For the aim we wish to reach here it is useless to tell how 
the stranger solved the question; we only want to say that he was 
actively applauded and that they permitted him to part very 
reluctantly. Somewhat later, the two Kabbalists found means 
of ascertaining that this man was one of the Friends (this is 
how the adepts of the doctrine are called in the entire work) ; 
that, because of humility he, one of the most renowned of the 
doctors of his time, gave his son the honor of knowledge 
admired in him; and that he came to Palestine, accompanied by 
the Friends, to collect some of the sayings of Simeon ben Yohai 
and his disciples.®* 

All the other facts recorded in this book are of the same color 
and take place on the same stage. When we add, that frequent 
mention is made there of the religious beliefs of the Orient, like 
Sabeism®? and even of Islamism; that to the contrary, nothing 
is found there which can have any reference to the Christian 
religion, we shall understand how the Zohar, in its present 
condition, could not have been introduced into our countries until 
some time near the end of the thirteenth century. Some of the 
doctrines contained therein, as Saadia has shown, were already 
known before; but it seems certain that before Moses de Leon, 
and before the departure of Nahmanides for the Holy Land, there 
existed no complete manuscript in Europe. 

As to the ideas contained in the Zohar, Simeon ben Yohai 
himself tells us that he was not the first one to introduce them. 
He repeated to his disciples what the “Friends” taught in the 


68 yoy Pp 5D YIIDs 9939 NSN AS Ww) NID RISA Pot eon 
NNIIN IRWY NM 13 Compare Zohar, Part III, fol. 157, 158. 
69 See, in particular, the first part of the Zohar, fol. 99, 100. 


rie ion bb AsbsAy iH 115 


ancient books ( .xpsP “HDI NIIIN woIpxt np). He particu- 
larly cites Jeba the Elder and Hamuna the Elder; and at the 
moment when he is about to reveal the greatest secrets of the 
Kabbalah, he expresses the hope that the shade of Hamunah will 
come to listen to him, followed by a procession of seventy of the 
Just.7° I am far from pretending that either these personages, or 
these books of so remote an antiquity, really existed; I only wish 
to establish the fact that the authors of the Zohar never thought 
of representing Simeon ben Yohai as the inventor of the 
Kabbalistic. science. 

There is another fact which deserves on our part the most 
serious attention. More than a century after the Zohar was pub- 
lished in Spain, there were still some men who knew, and who 
transmitted most of the ideas which form the substance of the 
Zohar, by tradition only. Of such was Moses Botril,. who, in 
1409, as he himself tells us,’ expresses himself on the Kabbalah 
and on the precautions to be taken in teaching it: “The Kabbalah 
is nothing other than a more pure and a more holy philosophy; 
only that the language of philosophy is not the same as that of the 
Kabbalah. .. .“ It is so named because it proceeds, not by reason- 
ing, but by tradition. And when the master has developed these 
matters for his disciple, that disciple must not have too much con- 
fidence in his wisdom; he is not permitted to speak of this science 
if not formally authorized first by the master. This right, namely, 
to speak about the Merkabah, will be accorded to him when he has 
given proof of his intelligence, and if the seed deposited in his 
breast, has borne fruit. On the contrary, it will be necessary to 
recommend silence to him, if he is found to be but an extrinsic 
person, and if he has, as yet, not reached the degree of those who 
distinguish themselves by their meditations.” (See Botril’s 
Commentary, fol. 87b.) 


70 Idra Rabba, ad init. 
71 See his commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah, edition Mantua, fol. 46- 
72 Jb. supr., fol. 31. 


116 Ti Ho Es PRAT BR eBrA eae 


Apparently, the author of these lines did not seem to know the 
Zohar even by its name, as the name is not mentioned a single 
time in any part of his work. On the other hand, he cites a 
large number of very ancient writers, nearly all of whom belong 
to the Orient, like Rabbi Saadia, Rabbi Hai and Rabbi Aaron, 
head of the Babylonian academy. Sometimes he tells us also of 
the things he learned orally from the mouth of his master. So it 
can not be supposed that he drew his Kabbalistic knowledge from 
the manuscripts published by Nahmanides and Moses de Leon. 
Still, the Kabbalistic system, of which Simeon ben Yohai may be 
considered at least the most illustrious representative, was pre- 
served and propagated, after as well as before the thirteenth 
century, by a multitude of traditions which some were pieased to 
write down, while others, more faithful to the method of their 
ancestors, guarded them religiously in their memory. 

Only such traditions as took birth from the first century until 
near the end of the seventh century of the Christian era, are 
found in the Zohar. In fact, we can not date—I would not say 
the compilation, but the existence of these traditions, so very 
similar or closely connected to one another by the spirit animating 
them—from an epoch less remote; for at that time they already 
knew of the Merkabah which is nothing more, as we know, than 
that part of the Kabbalah to which the Zohar is specially conse- 
crated; and Simeon ben Yohai himself tells us that he had 
predecessors. It is equally impossible for us to consider its birth 
in an age nearer to us; for we know of no fact which authorizes 
such a conclusion. ‘The insurmountable difficulties encountered 
in the opinions differing from ours, thus become positive facts 
which confirm our opinions, and which should not be counted 
as the last among the proofs of which we have made use. 

There still remain two more objections to be refuted. It has 
been asked how the principle which is the basis of our present-day 
Cosmography, or the system of Copernic, so clearly summed up 
in a passage we have translated above, could have been known 


THE KABBALAH 117 


at the remote time from which we date the origin of the principal 
element of the Kabbalistic system. We answer that, in any case, 
admitting even that the Zohar is nothing but an imposture of 
the close of the thirteenth century, this passage was known before 
the birth of the Prussian astronomer. Again, the ideas contained 
in that passage were already spread among the ancients; for 
Aristotle attributes them to the school of Pythagoras. ‘Nearly 
all those,” he says, “who assume to have studied the sky in its 
entirety, claim that the earth is at the centre; but the philosophers 
of the Italian school, otherwise called Pythagoreans, teach the 
contrary. In their opinion, the centre is occupied by fire, and 
the earth is only a star, the circular movement of which around 
that centre produces light and day.’ 

In their attack against philosophy, the first fathers of the 
church did not regard it as a duty to spare that opinion which is, 
in fact, irreconcilable with the cosmological system taught in 
Genesis. ‘It is,” said Lactantius,’* “an absurdity to believe that 
there are men who have the feet above their heads, and that there 
are countries where everything is upside down, where the trees 
and the plants grow from above down. . . We find the germ of 
this error among the philosophers who claimed that the earth is 
round.”*® St. Augustine expresses himself on the same subject 
in very similar terms. (De Civitat. Dei, lib. 16, ch. 9.) 

Finally, even the most ancient authors of the Gemara had 
knowledge of the antipodes and of the spherical form of the earth; 
for we read in the Jerusalem Talmud (Aboda Zarah, ch. 3), that 


73 T@v mhelotwv tnt tot péoov Aeyovtwv Soo tov bAoV oveavdv 
mexeqaoutvoyv elvan mado. “Evavtiws ot xegt thv "Itadiav, xadovpevor 
dé xvdaydgeio. Agyovow' éxi uév yag tod ugoov ato elvor Mao, THY 
Sé yi év TOV Gotewv ovoav, xinAw MeQouévyv neQi Td Uscov vinTO TE 
xaL uegav smotetv. 

De Coelo, Vol. II, ch. 13. 

74 A christian apologist of the fourth century.—Transl. 

75 Ineptum credere esse homines quorum vestigia sint superiora 
quam capita, aut ibi quae apud nos jacent inversa pendere; fruges et 
arbores deorsum versus crescere . . . Cujus eroris originem philosophis 
fuisse quod existimarint rotundum esse mundum.—Lib. 3, ch. 24. 


118 THE ake AB Biwi Ae 


while overrunning the earth to conquer it, Alexander the Great 
learned that it was round, and it is added that for this reason 
Alexander is represented with a globe in his hand. But even 
the fact which was thought to hold an objection against us, 
serves as proof; for during the entire duration of the Middle 
Ages, the true system of the world was barely known and the 
system of Ptolemy“ reigned undivided. 

It is also astonishing to find precisely in that part of the Zohar 
which is to be considered the most ancient, medical knowledge 
which seems to betray a familiarity with quite recent civilization. 
For example, the Idra Rabba, or the portion entitled “The Great 
Assembly,” contains these remarkable lines which may be believed 
to have been taken from some modern treatise on anatomy: “In 
the interior of the skull, the brain is divided into three parts, each 
one of which occupies a distinct place. It is covered, besides, 
with a very thin veil, and then with another, tougher, veil. By 
means of thirty-two channels, these three parts of the brain 
ramify into the entire body along on either side. They thus 
embrace the body from all sides and spread out in all it parts.”"* 

We can not fail to recognize in these words the three principal 
organs of which the brain and its principal coverings are composed, 
and the thirty-two pairs of nerves which proceed from them in a 
symmetrical order to give life and sensation to the entire animal 
economy. We must note, though, that, compelled to submit to a 
mass of religious precepts relating to their food, and obliged to 
observe the different states and different constitutions of the 
animals for fear of eating of that which the Law declares unclean, 
the Jews were early stimulated, by the most potent of forces, to 


76 An Alexandrian astronomer of the second century. He founded 
a system in which he expounded that the earth is round, that it occupies 
a fixed center, and that the heavens and all stars revolve around it 
once in twenty-four hours.—Transl. 

TT oxyepn PPT NOP WD RMD RW AITDNwWN 7959N “2 KNII9II 
PORT W.POAW PAN PMNS Pb) OWENS NRMID ONT Rv wP KOMP vy sy 
29D NPIB 395 WAR 115983) NIDD CNTY ND NAD NHI 392 pPywaND 93 
MWoNTR TWENS NB 923 996d Part III, fol. 136a. 


heh Ee SK AVDeD Av Ly Adi 119 


the study of anatomy and natural history. Thus, the Talmud 
counts generally the perforation of the covering of the brain, 
mp SY” op 3p, among the affections which may befall the 
animal, and so forbids the use of its flesh. 

But there is a condition upon which opinions are divided. 
According to some, the prohibition is only valid when both 
coverings are perforated ; according to others, it is sufficient when 
the perforation is found in the tough covering (dura mater) 
only.*8 Others, finally, are content with a dissolution of the 
continuity in the two interior cerebral coverings.“? In the same 
treatise the spinal marrow, sy twp in,®? is also spoken of, and 
the diseases peculiar to it. We wish to add, that since the middle 
of the second century there were professional physicians among 
the Hebrews; for it is told in the Talmud (Baba Meziah, 85b) 
that Judah the Pious, the editor of the Mishnah, suffered for 
thirteen years from an affection of the eye, and that his physician 
was Rabbi Samuel, one of the most zealous defenders of the 
Tradition, a man who, besides medicine, occupied himself with 
astronomy and mathematics. It was said of him that “the paths 
of the heavens were as well known to him as the streets of his 
native city.’ 

Here we close—and, no doubt, it is time to end—these purely 
bibliographical observations and, what we would call, the external 
history of the Kabbalah. The books we have had under examina- 


78 There is also the following in the original: “Finally, some 
are.content with a dissolution of the continuity of the two inferior brain 
coverings,’ which I omitted because the passage quoted by the author 
(Tract. Hulin, 45a) speaks only of the superior and inferior brain 
covering (dura mater and arachnoid—n”Axnn xypip and AX>*yY ROP) and 
only of two differing opinions.—On the other hand, this does not impair 
the remarks of the author.—Jellinek. 

@ Not omitted in this translation——Transl. 

79 Babylonian Talmud, tract. Hulin, ch. 3. 

80 Literally: Filum spinae dorsi (the thread of the spine of the 
back, which I note because in that passage it is spoken not only of the 
medulla spinalis (the marrow of the spine), but also of the membranous 
tube.—Jellinek. 

81 osysanos oS awd NIOWT 15DY M99 1993 Berahoth, 58b. 


120 THE KABBALA H 


tion are not, as enthusiasts have confidently affirmed, of either 
supernatural origin or of prehistoric antiquity. Neither are they, 
as a skeptical, superficial critic still assumes, the product of 
imposture conceived and consummated in sordid interest, the work 
of a hunger-driven charlatan devoid of all ideas and convictions, 
speculating in gross credulity. Once more to repeat: ‘These two 
books are the product of several generations. Whatever may be 
the value of the doctrines contained in them, they will always be 
worthy of preservation as a monument to the long and patient 
effort of intellectual liberty in the heart of a people and a time 
when religious despotism made the most use of its power. But 
this is not the only claim to our interest. As we have already 
said, and as we shall soon be convinced, the system they contain 
is, in itself, by reason of its origin and of the influence it exercised, 
a very important factor in the history of human thought 


PART TWO 





CHAPTER I 


THE DOCTRINE CONTAINED IN THE KABBALISTIC 
BOOKS. ANALYSIS OF THE SEFER YETZIRAH 


Despite the credulity of some and the skepticism of others, 
the two books which we have recognized as the true monuments 
of the Kabbalah will alone furnish us the necessary material for 
the exposition of this doctrine. Only on rare occasions, when 
compelled by absolute necessity of the obscurity of the text, shall 
we have the commentaries intervene. Yet, the ;innumerable 
fragments of which these books are composed, and which have been 
borrowed without selection and without insight from different 
epochs, are far from offering us a perfectly uniform character. 
Some develop only the mythological system, the most essential 
elements of which are to be found already in the Book of Job 
and in the Visions of Isaiah. 

With a wealth of detail they acquaint us with the functions 
of angels as well as of demons, and refer to ideas which have 
been popular for too long a time to be associated with a science 
that was considered a terrible and inviolable secret at its very 
inception. Other fragments, undoubtedly the latest, show such 
servile proclivity and such narrow-minded pharisaism as to 
resemble the talmudic traditions which,! because of pride and 


1 This judgment on the Talmud by the author is, on the whole, 
unjust. The Talmud is a work compiled by many authors, and ought 
not to suffer the guilt of individual authors. Furthermore, the differing 
elements contained must be separated. Considered in the light of 
revelation, the Halakah is the necessary consequence of Mosaism; the 


123 


124 HE ASB SBA Aer 


ignorance, were mixed with the views of a famous sect whose 
very name inspired idolatrous respect. Those fragments, finally, 
which make up the greatest number, teach us, as a whole, the 
true belief of the ancient Kabbalists. They make up the source 
which supplied all men who were more or less interested in the 
philosophy of their time, and who wished in modern times to pass 
as the disciples and propagators of the ancient Kabbalists. We 
must emphasize, though, that this distinction applies to the Zohar 
only. As to the Book of the Formation which we shall analyze 
first, although not very extensive, and although it does not always 
lift our mind to very high regions, offers us, nevertheless, a very 
homogenous composition of rare originality. The encircling clouds 
of the commentators’ imagination will disperse of themselves, if, 
instead of searching therein, as they did, for the mysteries of an 
ineffable science, we see there an effort of awakening reason) to 
perceive the plan of the universe and the bonds which connect to 
one common principle all the elements presented to us collectively. 

Neither the Bible, nor any other religious monument has ever 
explained the world, and the phenomena of which it is the stage, 
except by leaning on the idea of God, and by setting itself up as 
the interpreter of the supreme will and thought. Thus we see 
in the book of Genesis light springing from nothingness at 
the word of Jehovah. Having drawn the heavens and the earth 
from chaos, Jehovah makes Himself the judge of His work and 
finds it worthy of His wisdom; to give light to the earth, He 
fastens the sun, the moon, and the stars to the firmament. When 
He takes of the dust and breathes into it the breath of life to 
let afterwards escape from his hands the last and most beautiful 





Haggadah,? wherever appearing in the mystic-allegoric-fantastic form, 
is generally an offspring of orientalism.—Jellinek. 

4 By Halakah is meant the entire legal part of Jewish tradition. 
Haggadah stands for the non-legal part of Jewish tradition and falls 
under the heading of folk-lore, history, illustrations, etc., mostly for a 
moralizing effect.—Transl. 


954 Aol Com 


B\0 os oS 


eheh eK Atk B Aviv zAyH 125 


of His creatures, He has already declared His purpose to form 
Man in His image. 

In the work, of which we attempt to render account, an 
opposite line of procedure is followed; and this difference is very 
significant when it springs up for the first time in the intellectual 
history of a people; it is by the spectacle of the world that one 
is raised to the idea of God; it is by the unity which reigns in 
the works of creation that the unity as well as the wisdom of the 
Creator is demonstrated. It is for this reason, as we have said 
before, that the entire book is, so to speak, but a monologue 
spoken by the mouth of the patriarch Abraham. It is supposed 
that the contemplations contained in the book are the same which 
led the father of the Hebrews from the worship of the stars to 
the worship of the eternal God. ‘The character just noted is 
so evident, that it was commented on and very correctly defined by 
a writer of the twelfth century. “The Sefer Yetzirah,” said 
Judah Halevi,? “teaches the unity and omnipotence of God by 
means of various examples, which are multiform on one side and 
uniform on the other. They are in harmony with regard to the 
One, their Director. .. .’8 

So far everything is within bounds of reason; but instead of 
looking in the universe for the laws that govern it in order to 
read in these very laws the divine thought and wisdom, an 
endeavor is made to establish a gross analogy between the things 
and these signs of the thought, or the means by which the wisdom 
is making itself heard and maintained among men. Before we 
go any further, let us note that mysticism, at whatever time and 
under whatever form it manifests itself, attaches immesurable 


2 Spanish philosopher and Hebrew poet. c. 1085-1140.—Transl. 

3 Cuzari, IV, 25. Instead of the Hebrew text which few would 
understand, we cite the excellent Spanish translation from Jacob 
Abendana.2 “Ensena la deydad y la unidad por cosas que son varias y 
multiplicadas por una parte, pero per otra parte, son unidas y concor- 
dantes, y su union proscede del uno que los ordena.” 

@ J am taking here the English translation by Hartwig Hirschfeld. 
-—Transl, 


126 eH eke AS BS BRAS DEA ae 


importance to everything that represents outwardly acts of intelli- 
gence, and it is not so long since that a well-known Freach writer 
wanted to prove that the art of writing was not a human invention, 
but was a present given to humanity by revelation.* 

The question here is of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew 
alphabet and of the first ten numbers which, while preserving their 
proper value, serve also to express the value of all the others. 
Brought together under a common point of view, these two kinds 
of signs are called the thirty-two marvelous paths of Wisdom, 
“with which’” says the text—‘‘the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the 
God of Israel, the Living God, the King of the Universe, the 
God full of Mercy and Grace, the God Sublime, Who dwells in 
Eternity, Whose name is high and fails, founded His Name.” 
(First chap., 1st Mishnah.) 

‘To these thirty-two paths of Wisdom, which are not to be 
confounded with the subtle distinctions of an entirely different 
order admitted in their place by the modern Kabbalists,> we must 
add three other forms designated by three terms of very doubtful 
meaning, but which do resemble closely, by their grammatical 
genealogy, at least, the Greek terms which designate the subject, 
the object, and the very act of thought. We believe it has been 
shown previously that these detached words are foreign to the 
text; nevertheless, we must note the fact that they have been 
understood quite differently, in a way repugnant neither to the 
general character of the book, nor to laws of etymology, by the 
Spanish writer? mentioned above. 

He expresses himself on this subject as follows: ‘The first 


4 M. de Bonald, Recherches Philosoph., ch. III. See also de Maistre, 
Soirees de Saint- -Petersbourg, tome II, p. 112ff. 

5 Introduction to Abraham ben ‘Dior’s commentary on the Sefer 
Yetzirah, Mantua edition. 

6 4)pD1 12D: 1pp3 Sefer Yetzirah, ch. I, first proposition (Mishnah). 

7 Judah ha Levi of Andalusia wrote his religious-philosophical 
book “Cuzari” in Arabic. This was translated into Hebrew by Judah 
ibn Tibbon. From the Hebrew: translation, Abendana completed in 
Spanish, Buxtorf, a Latin, and lately D. Cassel and Dr. Yolowicz 


THE KABBALAH 127 


of these three terms (S’far),® is used to designate the numbers, 
which alone gives us a means of appreciating the disposition and 
the proportions necessary for each body in order to attain the 
purpose for which it was created; for the measure of length, of 
capacity, and of weight,® as well as of motion and of harmony, 
are all regulated by numbers. The second term (Sippur) signifies 
the word and the voice; for it is the Divine Word, the voice of 
the Living God, that produced the beings in all their different 
forms, whether internal or external. It was to that second term 
that allusion was made in the words: ‘And God said let there 
be light, and there was light.’ The third term (Sefer) signifies 


the writing. The writing of God is the work of the Creation; 
the Word of God is His writing; the thought of God is His 
word. ‘Thus, the thought, the word, and the writing! are one 


commenced a German translation, of which two numbers appeared 
until now.2—Jellinek 

® Cassel’s German translation is now complete. There is also an 
English translation from the original Arabic by Dr. Hartwig Hirsch- 
feld.—Transl. 

8 The three words 1nd (S’far), 18D (Sippur) and ‘aD (S’for) 
signify according to the author of the Cuzzari: Number, Language 
(Speech, Narration), Writing.—Jellinek 

8 Abendana’s translation of the two words of the original text 
DysaMm yw by “la cantidad y el peso“ is incorrect. He uses the same 
words to translate also °PYom Miwpn. To further develop this would 
lead us too far, as we would have to refer to the Arabic.—Jellinek 

10 It may interest the reader to know the direct translation of this 
passage, and I give here Dr. Hirschfeld’s English translation: “As to 
S’far it means the calculation and weighing of the created bodies. The 
calculation which is required for the harmonious and advantageous 
arrangement of a body is based on a numerical figure; expansion, 
measure, weight, relation of movements, and musical harmony, all 
these are based on the number expressed by the word S’far. No 
building emerges from the hand of the architect unless its image has 
first existed in his soul. Sippur signifies, the language, or rather the 
divine language, the voice of the words of the living God. This 
produced the existence of the form which this language assumed in 
the words: ‘Let there be light,’ ‘let there be a firmament.’ The word 
was hardly spoken when the thing came into existence. This is also 
Sefer, by which writing is meant, the writing of God means His 
creatures, the speech of God is His writing, the will of God is His 
speech. In the nature of God, therefore, S’far, Sippur, and Sefer are 
a unity, whilst they are three in human reckoning.”—Transl. 


128 T HE KR ABB AAU TH 


and the same in God, while in man they are three.”!! This 
interpretation has the merit that, while enobling, it also charac- 
terizes well this strange system that confounds the idea with the 
generally known symbols in order to make the idea somewhat 
visible in the total as well as in the different parts of the universe, 

Under the name of Sefiroth, which play such a prominent 
part elsewhere but which appear here for the first time in the 
language of the Kabbalah, the ten numbers, or the abstract 
enumerations are first taken notice of.12 They are represented 
as the most general and therefore as the most essential form of 
all that is, and if I may use the expression, as the categories of 
the universe. ‘Thus, according to the ideas interpreted by us, we 
must always meet with the number ten when searching from any 
viewpoint for the first elements or the invariable principles of 
the world. ‘There are ten Sefiroth; ten, and not nine; ten, and 
not eleven: try to understand them in your wisdom and in your 
intelligence; exercise constantly on them your researches, your 
speculations, your knowledge, your thought and imagination, place 
all things upon their principle, and re-establish the Creator on 





11 Quizo dezir en la palabra Sephar la cantidad y el peso de los 
cuerpos criados, por quanto la cantidad en modo que sea el cuerpo 
ordenado y proporcionado, apto para lo que es criado, no es sino por 
numero; y la medida, y la cantidad, y el peso, y la proporzion de los 
movimientos, y la orden de la harmonia todo es por numero, que es lo 
que quiere dezir Sephar. Y Sipur quiere dezir la habla e la voz, pero 
es habla divina, voz de palabras de Dioz vivo, con laqual es Ia 
existencia de la cosa en su forma exterior y enterior, de laqual se 
habla, come dixo y dixo Dios sea luz, y fue luz. Y Sepher quiere 
dezir la escritura; y la escritura de Dios son sus criaciones; y la 
palabra conque el Sephar, y el Sipur, y el Sepher en Dios son una 
cosa, y en el hombre son tres.—Cuzary, Discors., vol. 4 S 25. 

12 mp °52 miwaD wy (Esser S’firoth b’lee mah—Ten Sefiroth with- 
out what (anything). This expression in itself as well as the develop- 
ments following it, compel this interpretation and permit no others, like 
those of “Sphere” which is based on the Greek (Sphaira), or the idea 
of brightness, conveyed by the word “Sapphir” (7°5D } The book of 
Raziel, despite the extravagances contained in it, came near the truth 
on this point. anny we AM 93 19199 niiawnn $s—Raziel, edit. 
Amsterdam, Vol. &b. 


Rv RACK -B Ari A] 129 


his base.”23 In other. words, the divine action as well as the 
existence of the world equally shape themselves to the eyes of the 
intelligence under this abstract form of ten numbers; each one of 
which represents some infinity, whether that of space, of time, or 
of some other attribute. 

This, at least, is the meaning which we attach to the following 
proposition: ‘“To the ten Sefiroth there is no end, either in the 
future or in the past, either in good or in evil, either in height 
or in depth, either in the East or in the West, either in the South 
or in the North.”24 It must be noted that the different aspects 
under which the infinite is considered here, are few—no more, 
no less; this passage, therefore, teaches us not only the general 
character of all the Sefiroth, but we see herein to what elements 
and principles they correspond. And as these different viewpoints, 
although opposite—two to two, nevertheless belong to one idea, to 
one infinite, it is added:15 ‘The ten Sefiroth are like the ten 
fingers,!® five against five, but amidst them is the link of unity.” 
(ch. I, Prop. 3.) The last words give us the explanation as well 
as the proof of all the preceding. 

Without exactly deviating from the relations presented by 
the external things, this conception of the Sefiroth bears, never- 


13 Sefer Yetzirah. Ch. I, proposition 9. (Should be prop. 4.— 
Transl.) 

14 Ch. I, proposition 4. (Should be prop. 5.—Transl.) 

15 Unless the author pleases to disregard the order in which the 
propositions of the Sefer Yetzirah are given in the original text, he 
can not very well say here “it is added (on ajoute)”; for this, the third 
proposition, really precedes the previous one, fifth proposition (wrongly 
given as the 4th).—Transl. 

16 The author’s own conception of this passage may have induced 
him to insert the words “de la main (of the hand),” but they are not 
to be found in the original text, and are very properly omitted by Dr. 
Jellinek in his German translation. I can not refrain from quoting 
the exquisite remark by Dr. Philipp Bloch (Geschichte der Entwickelung 
der Kabbala und der juedischen Religionsphilosophie—History of the 
development of the Kabbalah and of the Jewish Religious Philosophy) 
to this unimpaired translation of this passage. He says: “As it is not 
spoken here specifically of the fingers of the hand, it refers as well to 
the fingers (toes) of the feet. Thus is symbolized here the diverging 
polarity which always converges again in an indifferent point.”—Transl. 


130 dT HE KAS BiB ALD Art 


theless, an eminently abstract and metaphysical character. Were 
we to subject it to a strict analysis, we would find therein, 
subordinated to the infinite and to absolute unity, the ideas of time, 
space, and of a certain unchangeable order without which there 
is neither good nor evil even in the sphere of the senses. But here 
is a somewhat different enumeration, which in appearance, at 
least, assigns a greater share to the material elements. We will 
confine ourselves to the translation: 

“The first of the Sefiroth, One, is the spirit of the living God, 
blessed be His name, blessed be the name of the One who lives in 
Eternity! The Spirit, the Voice, and the Word, that is the Holy 
Ghost. 

“Two is the breath proceeding from the spirit,)’ in it are 
graven and carved the:twenty-two letters which form, neverthe- 
less, but one single breath.48 

“Three is water, which proceeds from the breath or from 
the air. Into the water He dug darkness and void, mud and clay, 
and graved it like a (garden) bed,” carved it like a wall and 
covered it in the shape of a roof.” 


17 mine min. The same word (nin—Ru-ah) has the meaning of air, 
and spirit; therefore, we might have just as well said “the spirit which 
proceeds from the spirit.” But then it would have to be admitted that 
the spirit engendered water, an inference which is less probable than 
the version we have chosen. Moreover, the first number does not present 
God Himself, but the spirit of God; consequently the second number 
can not be anything but the expression of that spirit, the breath into 
which the twenty-two letters in some way finally resolved themselves. 

18 The translation of this proposition is not complete. I shall 
attempt its translation according to Dr. Bloch: “Two is the breath 
which comes from the spirit. In it He graved and formed 22 letters 
and the principle of which are three mothers (basic elements), seven 
doubles and twelve simples.” In another version is added: “In them 
(are) the four heavenly regions (cardinal points), East and West, 
North and South, and a breath (wind) is in every one of these.”—Transl. 

19 The author disregarded entirely the original text in this phrase, 
and Dr. Jellinek, in his German translation, tried to save the situation 
by correcting at least one word of it. The original Hebrew text has: 
MayIY 183 wen which Dr. Bloch very correctly renders with “He grave 
them in the shape of a (terrace-like, Gesenius) garden bed.” The 
author’s rendition of this phrase with “etendue ensuite en forme de 
tapis—spread out, then, in the shape of a carpet,” is explainable only 


ere eRe Aan eb s An laAn HH 131 


“Four is fire which comes from the water, and with which 
He made the throne of His glory, the celestial wheels (Ophanim), 
the Seraphim and the angelic servitors. With the three together 
He built His habitation, as it was written: ‘‘He made the winds 
His messengers, and His ministers a flaming fire.’’?° 

The six following numbers represent the different extremities 
of the world, that is to say, the four cardinal points (East, West, 
North and South), as well as height and depth. Those extremities 
have for emblems the different combinations which may be formed 
with the first three letters of the word Jehovah,?) 7? 

Thus, apart from the different points distinguishable in space, 
which in themselves hold nothing real, all the elements of which 
the world is composed evolved one from the other, becoming more 
and more material in measure as they receded from the Holy 
Spirit, their common origin. Is not this what is called the doctrine 
of emanation? Is not this the doctrine which denies the popular 
belief that the world was evolved from nothing? The following 
words may help perhaps to free us from uncertainty: “The end 
of the ten Sefiroth is tied to their beginning as the flame to the 
fire-brand, for the Lord is One and there is no second to Him; 
and what will you count before the One?” (Prop.7.) 

To impress upon us that we are dealing here with a great 
mystery which enjoins discretion even with ourselves, the following 
words are immediately added: ‘Close your mouth that you speak 


by assuming that he misunderstood the etymology of the word am27y 
—Arugoh, which he probably took as a derivation of “31%—orag,” to 
weave, written with an ®& “Aleph;” while the real root of the 
word is “31!—orag,’” to ascend, to mount, to rise, and written with 
an Y—Ain. The Hebrew word for carpet is ““»—Mahd” or “np pw 
—Smehah.”—Transl. 

20 This proposition is also not rendered strictly according to the 
original Hebrew text, and I shall again refer to Dr. Bloch’s translation 
as the truer one. It should read: ‘Three is water (which comes). from 
the fire. In it He graved and formed the throne of Glory, the Seraphim, 
Ophanim, Holy Beasts and Ministering Angels, and of these three He 
formed His dwelling, for it is written: Who maketh angels spirits; 
His ministers a flaming fire. (Psalms, CIV).—Transl. 

21 Ch. I, from prop. 9 to prop. 12. 

221 H W H (nw )—Transl, 


pave a Hoe RAS BoBoA aan ed 


not, and your heart that you do not ponder; and if your heart be 
too hasty, bring it back to its place, for therefore it is said: 
hasten and return,2* and it is upon this that a covenant was made.” 
(Ch. I, prop. 8.)*4 I suppose that the last words were meant 
to allude to some oath used by the Kabbalists to conceal their 
principles from the masses. The singular comparison contained 
in the first of the two passages is frequently repeated in the Zohar ; 
we shall find it there enlarged, developed and applied to the souls 
as well as to God. Let us add here, that at all times and in all 
spheres of existence, in the consciousness as well as in the external 
nature, the formation of things by way of emanation has been 
represented by the radiation of flames or of light. 

Another theory, one that made a brilliant career in the world, 
and which presents itself here with a remarkable character, blends . 
with this theory, provided, we do not make the distinction more 
apparent than real. It is the theory of the “Word,” of the Word 
of God identified with His spirit and considered not only as the 
absolute form, but as the generating element, and as the very 
substance of the universe. In fact it is not the question here of 
substituting everywhere (for the sake of avoiding anthropomorph- 
ism) the divine thought and inspiration for God Himself whenever 
He intervenes as a human person in the biblical stories, as is done 
in the Chaldaic translation of Onkelos. The book now under 
consideration expressly states, in a concise, yet clear language, that 
the Holy Spirit, or the Divine Spirit, forms with the Voice and 
the Word one and the same thing; that it successively puts forth 
from its bosom all the elements of physical nature. Finally, it is 
not only what is called in the language of Aristotle “the material 
principle of things,” but it is the Word become World. More- 
over, we must bear in mind that this part of the Kabbalah deals 
with the world only, and not with man or humanity. 


*3 Referring to Ezekiel I, 14: “And the living creatures ran and 
returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.’—Transl. 

*4 I have again deviated from the translation of the author and 
of Dr. Jellinek in order to adhere to the original Hebrew text.—Transl. 


Hiei rnb AsLe As tH 133 


All these considerations, which cover the first ten numbers, 
hold a very distinct place in the Book of Formation. It is easily 
seen that they apply to the universe in general, and that they 
consider more the substance than the form. In the consideration 
now before us, the different parts of the universe are naturally 
compared, and the same effort is made to bring them under a 
common law, as was done before to resolve them into a common 
principle; and in the end more attention is paid to the form than 
to the substance. For their foundation they have the twenty-two 
letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But we must not forget the 
extraordinary role attributed already in the first part of the work 
to these outward signs of thought. Considered entirely in rela- 
tion to the sounds they represent, the twenty-two letters stand, 
so to speak, on the boundary line between the intellectual and the 
physical world; for if, on the other hand, they are resolved into 
one single material element, the breath or air, they are, on the 
other hand, indispensable signs to all languages, and consequently 
the only possible or unalterable form of the mind. 

Neither the system as a whole, nor the literal meaning, permits 
us to give a different interpretation to the words quoted above. 
“The number two (or the second principle of the universe) is 
the air which comes from the spirit. It is the breath in which 
are graven and carved the twenty-two letters which, all united, 
form but one single breath.” Thus, by an odd combination which 
does not lack a certain grandeur, and which is explainable and 
comprehensible at least, the simplest articulations of the human 
voice, the signs of the alphabet, hold here a role entirely similar 
to the one held by the ideas in Plato’s philosophy. It is by 
their presence, by the impression which they leave in things, 
that we recognize a supreme intelligence in the universe in 
all its parts; and it is finally through them that the Holy Spirit 
reveals itself in nature. This is the meaning of the follow- 
ing proposition: “With the twenty-two letters, by giving them 
a form and a figure, and by mingling and combining them in 


134 THE WK AB BA TeAsH 


different ways, God made the soul of all that is formed, and 
of all that shall be formed.2> And on these same letters the 
Holy One, blessed be He, founded His sublime and holy name,”*® 

Those letters are divided into different classes called the “three 
mothers,” the ‘‘seven doubles,” and the “twelve simples.’’?? It 
is entirely useless for the aim we have in view to give the reason 
for those strange names.28 Moreover, the function of the letters 
is wholly encroached by the division that we have noted, and by 
the numbers resulting from the division, or, to speak more clearly, 
an attempt is made to find, per fas et nefas (whether right or 
wrong), the numbers three, seven and twelve in the three regions 
of nature; 1, in the general composition of the world; 2, in the 
division of the year, or in the distribution of time of which the 
year is the principal unit; and 3, in the structure of man. 
Although not stated explicitly, we find here the idea of the 
macrocosm and of the microcosm, or the belief that man is only 
the image, and, so to speak, the summary of the universe. 

In the general composition of the world the mothers, that is 
to say, the number three, represent the elements, which are: water, 
air and fire. Fire is the substance of the heavens; by condensation 


25°93 WB] 13 1¥) IBIS Mond py ayn ippm meme one powy 
Syd Tnyn > wos Tis Ch. II prop. 2. 4 

&@ Not fully translated. The literal translation is as follows: (With 
the) twenty-two letters (which) He carved them, graved them, weighed 
them and changed them around, He formed in them the soul of all that 
has been formed and the soul of all that will be formed.—Transl. 

26 .winp) DID iy N“aph ID. onaw NvNiX 3’D 19K 

27 .mibyB MWY ONY. MDD yawi mOX wisy TIO Mn Wd 39s 
Ch. I, prop. 8. 

28 The simples represent one sound only; the doubles express two 
sounds, one mild, the other hard. To the first class belong the following 
letters: pyyo 19 °on 119; the last class is represented by these two 
words: nop) 733. Finally, in the word wpx are gathered the three 
mothers, one of which the w, because it is a sibilant letter, represents 
fire; the second ®, which is silent, represents water; and, finally, 
the first letter ®%, which is slightly aspirate, is the symbol of air.* 

* It should also be mentioned that &® (Aleph) is the first letter in 
the word 71% (Ahveer)—air, » (Mem) is the first letter of the 
word o'» (Ma-yim)—water, and w (Shin) is the last letter of the 
word wx (Aysh)—fire. Compare ch. III, prop. 3.—Jellinek 


Ty tieiten he A Deb AelseAT rs 135 


water becomes the substance of the earth; finally, between these 
two antagonistic principles is air, which separates and reconciles 
them by dominating them. (Ch. III, prop. 4, b.) The same 
sign recalls the principal seasons in the division of the year: 
summer, which responds to fire; winter, which in the East is 
generally marked by rains or by the predominance of water; and 
the temperate season which is formed by the union of spring and 
autumn. ‘The same trinity, finally, is seen in the formation of 
the human body, in the head, the heart or breast, and the belly 
or stomach. These are, if I am not mistaken, the functions of 
the different organs which a modern physician has called: “‘the 
tripod of life.” (Ch. III, prop. 7.) 

The number three seems here, as in all other mystical combina- 
tions, to be such an indispensable form that it is taken also as 
the symbol of the moral man in whom is discernible, according 
to the original expression, “the scale of merit, the scale of 
culpability, and the tongue of the law decides between the two.’’? 

By the seven doubles are represented the contraries, or at 
least such things of this world which may serve two opposite ends. 
There. are seven planets in the universe, whose influence is now 
good, now bad; there are seven days and seven nights in the week; 
there are seven gates in the human body; the eyes, the ears, the 
nostrils and the mouth; and, finally, the number seven is also the 
number of the happy or unhappy events which may effect a man. 
But this classification is too arbitrary to deserve a place in this 
gndivsisae ne 1 Vi. -prop: (1,02, °3.) 

The twelve simples, of which we yet have to speak, respond 
to the twelve signs of the zodiac, to the twelve months of the 
year, to the principal parts of the human body, and to the most 
important attributes of our nature. ‘These last, which alone have 
some right to our interest, are sight, hearing, smell, speech, 
nutrition, generation, action or touch, locomotion, anger, laughter, 


thought and sleep. (Ch. V, prop. I, 2.) As will be seen here, 





29 ipynia yam Pin ie) Mist A312 AAIM AD Mio weNCh. III, prop. 1. 


136 TO HUE KSA B BrA Lb an 


it is the beginning of the spirit of investigation, and although we 
have often been surprised by its methods or by its results, yer, 
this in itself is proof of its originality. 

Thus, the material form of intelligence, represented by the 
twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is also the form of all that is; 
for, beyond man, the universe and time, nothing but the infinite 
can be conceived. ‘These three things are also called “the faithful 
witnesses of truth.” (Ch. VI, prop. 2.) Despite the varieties 
observed therein, each one constitutes a system which has its - 
centre and, in some way, its hierarchy; “for,” says the text, “Unity 
prevails. over the three, the three over the seven, and the seven 
over the twelve, but each part of the system is inseparable from 
all the other parts.’’3° The celestial dragon is the centre of the 
universe, the heart is the centre of man; finally, the revolutions 
of the zodiac form the basis of the years. ‘The first, it is said, 
is compared to a king upon his throne; the second to a king 
among his subjects; the third to a king in war.3! 

We believe that this comparison was meant to indicate the 
perfect regularity reigning in the universe, and the contrasts 
which exist in man without destroying his unity. In fact, it is 
added that the twelve principal organs which form the body of 
man “are aligned one against another, as in order of battle. Three 
of them serve love, three produce hatred, three give life, and 
three summon death.®* Thus evil confronts good, and from evil 
comes forth evil only.”’ (Prop. 9.) But immediately the remark 
is made that one can not be understood without the other. 

Finally, above these three systems, above man, above the 
universe, and above time; above letters as well as above the 
numbers of the Sefiroth, “is the Lord, the true king Who reigns 


30) awy pow 929 SY myaw jnyaw 923 Sy mwsw jnwow Dd oy Sonex 
ChieVil prop. 13. 

310 wbi2 39) AT1H2 «19ND TWD 9999 NOD «(OY ‘Idpd DSS °5n 
Jonson. «303-—Ch. VI, prop. 7. 

32 pend nwsy mw Awoy DMN nwsw Apnse. oy wy prow 
onse mwsy Ch. VI, prop. 11. 


(en ba AB BAIA H 137 


over all things from the place of His holiness forever and ever.’’?? 
Following these words, which form the true conclusion of the 
book, comes the dramatic final event, of which we have spoken 
before—the conversion of Abraham, the idol worshipper, to the 
religion of the true God. 

The final word of this system is the substitution of absolute 
unity for every form of dualism; the dualism of Pagan philosophy 
which would find in matter an eternal substance whose laws are 
not always in accord with the Divine Will, as well as the dualism 
of the Bible, which by the idea of creation sees indeed in the Divine 
Will, and consequently in the Infinite Being, the only cause, the 
only real origin of the world, but which, at the same time, regards 
these two things, the universe and God, as two substances, 
absolutely distinct and separate. In the Sefer Yetzirah, God 
is really considered as the Infinite Being and therefore indefinable ; 
God, in the full extent of His power and of His existence, is 
above, but not outside (extra) of the letters and numbers, that 
is to say, not outside of the principles and of the laws which we 
distinguish in this world. 

Each element has its source in a superior element, and all 
elements have their common origin in the Word, or in the Holy 
Spirit. It is in the Word also that we find the invariable signs of 
thought which repeat themselves in some way in all the spheres 
of existence, and through which all that zs becomes an expression 
of the same design. And that Word itself, the first of the num- 
bers, the most sublime of all the things we can count and define— 
what else is it but the most sublime and the most absolute of all 
the manifestations of God, that is, the supreme thought of intelli- 
gence? ‘Thus, in the highest sense, God is both the matter and 
the form of the universe. And not only is He that matter and 
that form, but nothing exists, or can exist, outside (extra) of 
Him. His substance is at the bottom of every thing, and there- 





33 sy TY Wr wp fie osIDD Swim tex. aS ON After having 
been applied in its entirety to the ten Sefiroth, this passage appears only 
in part in the place indicated. The four last words are cut short. 


138 PHO he AL BoA yal 


fore all bear His imprint, and all are symbols of His supreme 
intelligence. 

This bold deduction, apparently so audacious and strange to 
the underlying principles, is the basis of the doctrine set forth 
in the Zohar. But the way followed there is entirely different 
from the one outlined here before our eyes. Instead of rising 
gradually, by the comparison of the particular forms and the 
subordinate principles of this world, to the supreme principle, to 
the universal form, and, finally to the absolute unity, it is this 
result, the absolute unity, which is admitted first of all. It is 
supposed, it is invoked on all occasions as an uncontested axiom; 
it is unrolled, as it were, to its full extent, while at the same 
time, it is shown in a more brilliant and more mysterious light. 
True, the bond which might exist between all the deductions 
obtained in that way is broken by the external form of the work, 
but the synthetic character which permeates it is, nevertheless, 
pronounced and visible. 

We may say, then, that the Book of Brightness begins just 
where the Book of Formation ends. ‘The conclusion of one serves 
as the premises of the other. A second difference, deserving more 
worthy notice, separates these two monuments, and finds its 
explanation in a general law of the human mind. We shall see, 
namely, internal forms, invariable conceptions of thought, substi- 
tuted for the letters and the numbers, in a word, ideas, in the 
widest and in the noblest meaning of the word. ‘The divine 
word (Adyos ), instead of manifesting itself exclusively in 
nature, will appear to us above all in man and in intelligence; 
it will be called the “archtype”’ or “celestial” man: Adam 
Kadmon, }97) OF8 7 NSY OTN.34 

In certain fragments whose high antiquity can not be contested, 
we see, without prejudice to Absolute Unity, thought itself taken 
for universal substance, and the regular development of that 


34 sx5y pix (Adam Eelo-o), literally: High man, therefore: Ideal 
man, Celestial man. p73? ocx (Adam Kadmon), literally: Previous 
man, therefore: Archetype man.—Transl. 


Dera ter A bei Aly ALE, 139 


power set in place of the somewhat gross theory of emanation. 
Far be it from us to indulge the insensate thought of finding 
among the ancient Hebrews the philosophical doctrine which 
reigns almost exclusively in Germany today; but we do not fear 
to maintain, and we hope to demonstrate, that the principle of 
that doctrine and even the expressions appropriated exclusively 
by the school of Hegel, are found in the forgotten traditions we 
are now endeavoring to bring to light. 

This transformation that we point out in the Kabbalah, this 
passing from symbol to ideas, is reproduced in all great philo- 
sophical and religious systems, and in all great conceptions of the 
human intellect. Do we not see so in rationalism the different 
forms of the language, in which Aristotle’s logic was almost 
entirely composed, turn, in Kant’s logic, to the constitutive and 
invariable forms of thought? In idealism, did not Pythagoras 
and the system of numbers precede the sublime theory of Plato? 
And in another sphere, were not all men represented as issuing 
from the same blood? Was not their fraternity found in the 
flesh before it was found in the identity of their duties and their 
rights, or in the unity of their nature and their task? ‘This is not 
the place to dwell any longer upon a general fact; but we hope 
to have made clear at least the relations existing between the 
Sefer Yetzirah and the more extensive and more important 
work,®® the substance of which we shall soon give. 





85 The Amsterdam edition of the Zohar consists of three great 
volumes in octavo, each one of which contains nearly six hundred 
pages in rabbinical characters, very finely and very closely printed. 


Cuapter II 


ANALYSIS OF THE ZOHAR 
ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF THE KABBALISTS 


As the authors who contributed to the formation of the Zohar 
give us their ideas in the humblest and the least logical shape, in 
the form-of a simple commentary on the Five Books of Moses, 
we may, without failing in respect or fidelity to them, pursue the 
plan that seems most suitable to us. And, first of all, it is 
important to know how they understand the interpretation of the 
Sacred Scriptures, how they succeeded in using them as a support 
at the moment when they deviate most from them. For, as we 
have said before, such is their method of interpretation; and, 
generally speaking, there is no other basis to symbolic mysticism. 

Let us give here their own judgment on this point: Woe to 
the man who sees nothing but simple stories and ordinary words 
in the law! For were this so, we could even nowadays frame 
a law which would deserve higher praise. Were it our desire 
to find nothing but simple words, we should have nothing to do 
but to turn to the legislators of the earth, among whom more 
grandeur is frequently found.t It would be sufficient to imitate 
them, and to make a law according to their words and to their 
example. But it is not so; every word of the law holds an 
exalted meaning and a sublime mystery. 

“The recitals of the law are the vestmcnt of the law. Woe 


t OD WII TIS NOSYT MDP PI YAR NOSYT 19D ANMRS Kx 
NOMS WTI WAYss YVINAN F979 IA ON TM pRSy (As the text 
was too long to be quoted in its entirety, a selection has been made.) 


140 


Het ti Ae be Auli aid 141 


to him who takes that vestment for the law itself! David had 
this in mind when he said: Open Thou my eyes, that I may 
behold wondrous things out of Thy law (Psalms 119, 18), i.e., 
what is hidden under the cloak of this law.” 

“There are foolish people who, when they see a man covered 
with fine clothes, look no further than the garment, and yet it 
is the body that lends value to the clothes ;? and still more precious 
is the soul. The law also has its body. There are commandments 
that may be called the body of the law, and the ordinary recitals 
which are mingled with them are the clothes which cover the 
body. The simple-minded take heed of nothing but the vestments 
or the recitals of the law; they know nothing else, and do not 
see what is hidden under this garment. The well-informed 
think not of the vestment, but of the body that the vestment 
covers. Finally, the wise, servants of the Supreme King, they 
who dwell upon the heights of Sinai, think of the soul only, 
which is the foundation of all the rest, and which is the law 
itself, and in time to come they will be prepared to contemplate 
the spirit of that spirit which breathes in the law.’ 

Thus, by the sincere or insincere supposition of a mysterious 
meaning, unknown to the profane, the Kabbalists first placed 
themselves above the historic facts and the positive precepts which 
compose the Scriptures. This was their only means of assuring 


2 In this edition the author deviates slightly from the original 
text and follows the interpretation of Dr. Jellinek. In the first edition 
the translation reads: “There are foolish people, who, when they see 
a man covered with fine clothes look no further than the garment, and 
take the garment for the body.” Dr. Jellinek makes the following 
interesting remark to this passage: ‘The author translated here faith- 
fully the text, just as I rendered literally the French text. Yet, I 
believe that the text of the Zohar is corrupted here; for the example 
given is inconsistent in itself, as every thoughtful reader will easily 
see. I would therefore change the Xv129 Ninn 329M of the text, 
where 12)wn is used as a verb, into the noun nyia’wn, and have the 
sentence refer not to the foolish people, but make it exclamatory of the 
Zohar itself. This conjecture is supported by the following m2vnh 
snow) xpwaT .”—Transl. 

3 Zohar, part III, fol. 152a, sec. an9yn2 (Bhaleth-ho), 


142 TH Eee KAR BeAr Agr 


themselves of full liberty without openly breaking with religious 
authority; and, possibly, they felt the need of doing something 
to assuage their consciences. We find the same spirit in a form 
still more remarkable in the following lines: “If the law con- 
sisted of nothing but ordinary words and recitals, like the words 
of Esau, of Hagar, of Laban, of Balaam’s ass, and of Balaam 
himself, why should it have been called the law of truth, the 
perfect law, the faithful testimony of God? Why should the 
wise man* deem it more precious than gold and pearls? But 
it is not so. Every word hides a very high meaning; every recital 
contains more than events it seems to contain. And that higher 
and more holy law is the true law.’ 

It is of some interest to find similar views and similar 
expressions in the works of a father of the church. “Were we 
obliged,” says Origen, ‘“‘to hold to the letter of the law, and to 
understand what is written in the law as the Jews and the 
people understand it, I should blush to tell aloud that it is God 
who gave us such laws; I should find, then, more grandeur, and 
more reason in the laws of man, as for instance, in the laws of 
Athens, of Rome, or of Lacedemonia. .. .’ 

“What sensible man, pray,” says the same author, “‘could be 
made to believe that the first, the second and the third days of 
the creation, where morning and evening is still mentioned, could 
exist without sun, moon and stars, when on the first day there 
was not even a sky? Where will we find a mind so limited as to 
believe that God, like a ploughman, engaged in planting trees in 


4 Refers to David and to Psalms, XIX, 11. “They are those which 
are to be desired more than gold, and much fine gold...” The author 
mistook the word 15 (Poz) ;—fine gold, for 63935 (P’ninim)—pearls.— 
Transl. 

5 HMDA 77 NN PiwPt RMN WOR APY RwoID RNR WD RON 
—Part III, Fol. 149b. 

6 Si absideamus litterae et secundum hoc vel quod Judaeis, vel 
quod vulgo videtur, accipiamus quae in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere 
et confiteri quia tales leges dederit Deus; videbunter enim magis 
elegantes et rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia, vel Romanorum, 
vel Atheniensium, vel Lacedaemoniorum.”—Homil. 7, in Levit. 


Ter Eee ik AB Bi Ace AH 143 


the garden of Eden, situated toward the East; that one of the 
trees was the tree of life, and that another tree could give the 
knowledge of good and evil? I think that no one could hesitate 
to regard these things as parables under which are hidden 
mysteries.” 

Finally, he also admits the differentiation between an historical, 
a legislative or moral meaning, and a mystical meaning; but 
instead of using the clothes that cover us as a simile, he compares 
the first to the body, the second to the soul, and the last to the 
spirit.2 In order to establish, at least, certain apparent relations 
between the sacred word and these arbitrary interpretations, the 
ancient Kabbalists sometimes resorted to artificial means very 
rarely met with in the Zohar, but which have taken up considerable 
space and authority with the modern Kabbalists.® As these means 
are, by their very nature, unworthy of all interest, as they never 
serve as basis to any important idea, and as they have been dis- 
cussed by a great many, we pass them in silence that we may more 
quickly come to the essential subject of our researches, to the 
doctrine which is the fruit of that feigned independence, and 
which forms the unity and basis of these pretended commentaries. 


7 Cuinam quaeso sensum habenti convenienter videbitur dictum quod 
dies prima, et secunda et tertia, in quibus et vespera nominatur et 
mane, fuerint sine sole, et sine luna, et sine stellis: prima autem dies 
sine coelo? Quis vero ita idiotes invenitur ut putet, velut hominem 
quemdam agricolam, Deum plantasse arbores in Paradiso, in Eden, 
contra orientem, et arborem vitae plantasse in eo, ita ut manducans 
quis ex ea arbore vitam percipiat? et rursus ex alia manducans arbore, 
boni et mali scientiam capiat? etc., msogi Gox@v, liv. IV, ch. II, Huet, 
Origeniana, p. 167. 

8 “Triplicem in Scripturis divinis intelligentiae modum, historicum, 
moralem, et mysticum: unde et corpus inesse et animam ac spiritum 
intelleximus.”—Hamil. 5, in Levit. 

9 Those names are three in number: one, &°1DD°} (Gematria), 
consists in setting one word in place of another word which has the 
same numerical value; the other, 1yp1h12 (Notarikon), makes each letter 
of a word the initial of another word. Finally, by virtue of the last, 
muon =(Temurah), the value of the letters is changed: for instance, 
the last letter takes the place of the first, and reciprocally. See Reuchlin’s 
De Arte cabalistica, Wolf’s second vol. of the Bibliotheca Hebr.; 
Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, etc., etc. 


144 - TH Be Ke ACB BATE ATH 


We shall first try to present the nature and attributes of 
God according to the most ancient fragments of the Zohar. We 
shall then set forth the idea which they have given us—I do not 
say of the creation, but of the formation of beings in general, 
or of the relations of God with the universe. Finally, we shall 
consider man; we shall tell how he is conceived under his chief 
aspects, and how his origin, his nature and his destinies are 
uescribed. We consider this way of proceeding not only the 
simplest and the easiest, but» we believe that the dominant 
character of the system imposes it upon us. 


CuHapPTER III 


CONTINUATION OF THE ANALYSIS 
OF THE ZOHAR 


THE KABBALISTS’ CONCEPTION OF THE 
NATURE OF GOD 


The Kabbalists speak of God in two ways which in no wise 
impair the unity of their thought. When they attempt to define 
God, when they distinguish His attributes, and wish to give us 
a precise idea of His nature, they speak in the language of meta- 
physics, with all the lucidity permissible in matters of such nature 
and by the idiom in which they are expressed. But sometimes 
they represent the divinity as a being which can not be compre- 
hended at all, a being that lives always above all the forms with 
which our imagination may clothe it. In the latter case all their 
expressions are poetical and figurative, and then they combat, as 
it were, imagination with the weapons of imagination; then all 
their efforts tend to destroy anthropomorphism by giving it such 
gigantic proportions, that the frightened mind can find no term 
of comparison, and is compelled to rest in the idea of the Infinite. 

The Book of the Mystery is written entirely in this style; but 
as the allegories it employs are all too often puzzling, we shall 
rather cite a passage of the Idra Rabba! in confirmation of what 


1 These two words signify the “Great Assembly,” because the 
fragment bearing this title comprises the discourses held by Simeon ben 
Yohai amidst all his disciples assembled to the number of ten. At a 
later time when death had reduced them to the number of seven, they 
formed the “Little Assembly” (x»it 8U7R8—Idra Zutah) to which ben 
Yohai spoke before he died. 


145 


146 THE KABBALAH 


we have said. ‘Simeon ben Yohai had just assembled his disciples. 
He told them that the time had come to work for the Lord, that 
is to say, to make known the real meaning of the law; that his 
days were numbered, that the laborers were few and the voice 
of the creditor, the voice of the Lord, became more and more 
urgent.2, He made them swear that they would not profane the 
mysteries he was about to confide to them.? They repaired to 
a field and sat down in the shadows of the trees. Simeon was 
‘about to interrupt the silence by his speech, when a voice was 
heard and their knees knocked one against another* with fear. 
What was that voice? It was the voice of the celestial assembly 
which assembled to listen. Rabbi Simeon exclaimed joyfully: 
Lord, I have heard Thy voice, (Habakkuk, III, 1) but I shall 
not add like that prophet did—‘I fear,’ for this is not the time 
of fear, it is the time of love, as it is written: ‘Thou shalt love 
the Eternal Lord, thy God.” (Zohar, pt. III, fol. 128.) 
After this introduction, which lacks neither pomp nor interest, 
follows a long, entirely allegorical, description of the divine 
greatness. Here are some outlines: ‘‘He is the Ancient of the 
Ancients, the Mystery of the Mysteries, the Unknown of the 
Unknown. He has a form peculiar to Him, since He appears 
to us preferably as the Aged, as the Ancient of Ancients, as the 
Unknown among the Unknown. But under the form that we 


2 In the text: xo» 33 ND NMS PNT RINT MND Wo Yer poy 
IR PWYT Nop wtynpy Compare R. Tarfon’s saying in Pirke Abot 
(Chapters of the Fathers) Syn) bS¥yy psyIBAY AID ADNeDAI “yp OVA 
pmit_ mean “The day is short, the work aplenty, the laborers are lazy 
and the master urges.”—Jellinek. 

3 The passage: NWN WRT TIN CONN TB Nyow 9) ION) nna 

AON WON OYA 23 WY INDI ows won 7 wD ADD) %OB Awy 
“(R. Simeon ben Yohai) opened (the discourse) and said: Cursed be 
the man who maketh a graven or molten image, the abomination of the 
Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret 
place; and all the people shall answer, and say, Amen (Deut. XXVII, 
15),” points out very clearly that the description of God was not to 
be taken in a material way.—Jellimek. 

4 According to Daniel V, 6. twp) N35 NT In3)D7NI—and his knees 
knocked one against the other.—Jellinek. 


ecole or nse bea Ly Age 147 


know Him, He still remains unknown to us. His vestment is 
white, and His appearance is that of a brilliant visage.’® 

“He is seated on a throne of fiery sparks which He subjects 
to His will. The white light emitted by His head illumines four 
hundred thousand worlds. ‘This white light becomes the inheri- 
tance of the just in the world to come.® Each day sees thirteen 
myriads of worlds come to light from His skull, which receive 
from Him their subsistence, and the weight of which He alone 
supports. From His skull springs a dew which fills His head, 
and which will awaken the dead to a new life. For therefore 
it was written (Isaiah, X XVI, 19): For a dew of light is Thy 
dew. It is this dew which is the nourishment of the greatest 
saints. It is the manna which is prepared for the just in the 
life to come. It falls in the fields of the sacred fruits.?7 The 
aspect of that dew is white as the diamond whose color contains 
all colors. . .. The length of that face, from the summit of the 
skull, is three hundred and seventy thousand myriad worlds, and 
it is called the long face, for such is the name of the Ancient 
of the Ancients.’’® 

But we should fail in the truth were we to give the impression 
that the rest be judged by this example. Oddness, affectation 
and habit, which in the Orient so often abuse allegory even to 
subtlety, hold a larger place in it than nobility and grandeur. 
That head, dazzling with light, used to represent the eternal 
hearth of existence and of science, becomes, so to speak, the subejct 
of an anatomical study; neither the forehead, nor the face, nor the 


5 I can not find any other meaning in the two words: ‘5387 &3°%)2 

6The French text has: “Quatre cent mille mondes né de cette 
blanche lumiére.’”—; Four hundred thousand worlds begotten by this 
white light. This translation of the original text is incorrect, and is 
based upon a misconception of the hap-hazard punctuation of the Zohar. 
The author has read together ‘nk7 XD5Y% with the following XD °4 
rosy , which is really the beginning of a new sentence, and is an 
introduction to the explanatory phrase %’n7—Transl. 

7 The adepts of the Kabbalah are so called. 

8 This “long” or “great face” is nothing else, as we shall soon see, 
but the divine substance, the first Sefiroh. 


148 THE KABBALAH 


eyes, nor the brain, nor the hair, nor the beard, nothing is for- 
gotten; everything gives an opportunity of enunciating numbers 
and propositions which point out the Infinite.® ‘This evidently is 
what provoked the reproach of anthropomorphism and even of 
materialism which some modern writers have directed against the 
Kabbalists. But neither that accusation nor the form which called 
it forth are worthy of further consideration. We shall rather 
make an attempt to translate some of the fragments in which the 
‘same subject is treated in a manner more interesting to philosophy 
and to human intelligence. 

The first one we shall cite forms a complete total of great 
extent, and by that fact alone it recommends itself to our atten- 
tion. Under pretence of making known the true meaning of the 
words of Isaiah (Ch. XL, 25): “To whom then will ye liken 
me that I shall be equal to? saith the Holy One,” it explains the 
genesis of the ten Sefiroth, or chief attributes of God, and the 
nature of God Himself while yet concealing Himself in His 
own substance. “Before having created any form in the world, 
before He produced any image, He was alone, without form, 
without resembling anything, and who could conceive Him as He 
was then, before the creation, since He was formless? It is 
therefore forbidden to represent Him by any image, by any form 
whatever, even by His holy name, even by a letter or by a’ point. 
That is the meaning of the words (Deut. IV, 15): ‘For ye saw 
no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto 
you. That is to say, you saw nothing that you can represent 
under any form or by any image. But after having produced the 
form of the Heavenly Man, pxSy ox, (Adam E-lo-oh) He 
used it as a chariot, 254% Merkabah, to descend; He wished 
to be called by that form which is the holy name of Jehovah; He 
wished to be known by His attributes, by each attribute separately, 
and let Himself be called the God of Mercy, the God of Justice, 


® Zohar, part III, fol. 1292 and b. The description of the beard 
and of the hair alone takes up a considerable place in the Idra Rabba. 


HOH IGe Ke AgBeR  AcLa AH 149 


the All Powerful God, the God of Hosts, zd the One Who Is. 
His intention was to make known His qualities, and how His 
justice and His mercy embrace the world as well as the work of 
man. Had He not shed His light over all creatures, how could 
we have known Him? How would it be true to say that the 
world is full of His glory? (Isaiah VI, 2.) Woe to the man 
who dares compare Him even to one of His own attributes! 
Much less is He to be likened to man, born of earth and destined 
to death. He must be conceived as above all creatures and above 
all attributes. 

“When all those things have been taken away, there is neither 
attribute, nor image, nor figure; that which remains is like a sea, 
for the waters of the sea are in themselves limitless and without 
form; but when they spread over the earth they produce an 
‘mage, }}393 (Dimyon), and we can make the following calcu- 
lation: The source of the waters of the sea and the jet springing 
from it to spread over the ground, make two. Then an immense 
basin forms, as a basin is formed when a pit of vast depth is dug; 
that basin is occupied by the waters which have sprung from the 
source, and that is the sea itself, which should be counted as 
the third. And this vast depth divides itself into seven canals 
which resemble seven long vessels. “The source, the jet, the sea 
and the seven canals together make the number ten. And if the 
master who constructed those vessels breaks them, the waters 
return to their source, and only the fragments of the vessels, dry, 
without water, remain. “Thus, the cause of the causes produced 
the ten Sefiroth. The Crown is the source from which an 
unending light springs forth, and therefore the name ‘Infinite’ 
mip se (Ayn Sof), to designate the Supreme Cause for in that 
state it has neither form nor countenance; therefore, there is no 
means of comprehending it, and no way of knowing it; and it is 
in this sense that it is said: ‘Meditate not upon the thing that 
is too far above thee, and investigate not what is covered from 


150 oy) Hab AE KS ASB CRsASE Ag 


thee.2° Then a vessel comes into existence, as restricted in 
dimensions as a point—as the letter » (Yod)—in which, never- 
theless, the divine light penetrates. “This is the source of wisdom, 
it is wisdom, by virtue of which the supreme cause takes the name 
of the all-wise God. After which it constructs a great vessel like 
the sea, called the intelligence, whence the name of God the 
‘Intelligent.’ We must know, however, that God is good and 
wise by virtue of Himself; for wisdom does not deserve its name 
- because of itself, but because of Him Who is wise, and Who 
produces wisdom from the light emanated from Him. Neither 
is intelligence conceivable by itself, but through Him Who is the 
Intelligent One, and Who replenishes it from His own substance. 
He need only to withdraw to let it dry out entirely. In this 
sense we should also understand the following words (Job XIV, 
11): “The waters run off from the sea and the river faileth 
and drieth up.’ 

“Finally, the sea is divided into seven branches, and from 
these result the seven precious vessels called Mercy or Grandeur, 
Justice or Strength, Beauty, Triumph, Glory, Kingdom and the 
Foundation or Basis.14_ For that reason He is called the Great 
or the Merciful, the Strong, the Magnificent, the God of Victory, 
the Creator to whom belongs all glory, and the foundation of all 
things. ‘This last attribute sustains all the others, as well as all 
the worlds. Last of all, He is also the king of the universe; for 
all things are in His power. He can diminish the number of 
the vessels, and He can increase the light which breaks forth 
from them, or the contrary if He deems preferable.’!? All that 
the Kabbalists have thought of the nature of God is summed up 


10 Ben Sira; Babyl. Talmud, tract. Haggiga 15. Bereshith Rabba, 8. 

11 Ordinarily “Foundation” (31D»—Y’sod) is taken as the one 
BSE ph last and “Kingdom” (nix39—Malchus) as the last Sefiroh. 
—Jellinek. 

® And it is so given in the original text of the Zohar. The author 
is also mistaken in translating the last Sefiroh ni35» (Malchus) with 
“royauté” (royalty). He probably meant to render it by “royaumé” 
(kingdom).—Transl. 

12 Zohar, part II, fol. 42b, 43a, sec..nYB 3x NB. 


THE KABBALAH 151 


nearly in this text. But even in the minds most familiar with 
metaphysical systems and questions, this text must leave some 
confusion. On the one hand it should be followed by quite wide 
developments; on the other hand, it would be well to present each 
one of the principles confined therein under a more substantial 
and more precise form. In order to attain this double aim without 
compromising historical truth, and without fear of substituting 
our own thoughts for those whose spokesman we wish to be, we 
shall reduce the foregoing passage to a small number of funda- 
mental propositions, each one of which will be elucidated, and at 
the same time justified by other extracts from the Zohar. 

1. God is, before all else, the Infinite Being; He can 
therefore not be considered as the totality of the beings, nor as the 
sum of His own attributes. But without these attributes and 
without the effects which result from them, that is to say, without 
a definite form, it is never possible either to comprehend or to 
know Him. This principle is quite clearly expressed when it is 
said that “before the creation God was without form, resembling 
nothing; and that in this state no intelligence could conceive 
Him.” But as we do not wish to confine ourselves to this one 
testimony, we hope that it will not be difficult to recognize the 
same thought in the following words: 

“Before God manifested Himself, when all things were still 
hidden in Him, He was the least known among all the unknown. 
In that state He had no name other than the name that expresses 
interrogation. He began by forming an imperceptible point; that 
was His own thought. He then began to construct with this 
thought a mysterious and holy form; finally He covered it with a 
rich and radiant garment; we mean the universe whose name 
necessarily enters into the name of God.’1!% We read also in 


13 Zohar, part I, fol. 1 and 2; part II, fol. 105a. In this text there 
is a play upon words that can not be rendered faithfully. It is proposed 
to explain the following verse: “Lift up your eyes toward the heavens 
and see who has created these.” (Isaiah, XL, 6). Now, by joining 
the two Hebrew words '» (Me—Who) and mmx (Ayleh—these), we get 


152 THE KABBALAH 


the Idra Zutah (the lesser assembly), whose importance we have 
noted more than once: “The Ancient of Ancients is at the same 
time the Unknown of the Unknown; He separates Himself from 
all, and He is not separated ; for all unites with Him, as He again 
unites with all; there is nothing that is not in Him. He has a 
form, and it may be said He has no form. By taking a form 
He gave existence to all that is;!* first, He caused His form to 
send out ten lights!® which shine by virtue of the form they 
borrowed of Him, diffusing a dazzling effulgence to all sides, 
just as a beam sends out its luminous rays to all sides. ‘The 
Ancient of Ancients, the Unknown of the Unknown is a high 
beacon which is recognized only by the rays that glare our eyes 
with such brilliancy and abundance. This light is called His 
holy name.’’?6 

2. The ten Sefiroth, by which the Infinite Being first mani- 
fested Himself, are nothing but attributes which, by themselves, 
have no substantial reality. In each of those attributes the divine 
substance is present in its entirety, and, taken all together, they 
constitute the first, the most complete and highest of all the 
divine manifestations. It is called the ‘‘archetypal or celestial 
man” pxXdsy on op ot? This is the figure which domi- 
nates the mysterious chariot of Ezekiel, and of which the 
terrestrial man, as we shall soon see, is but a faint copy. ‘““The 
form of man,” says Simeon ben Yohai to his disciples, “‘contains 
all that is in heaven above and upon earth below, the superior as 
well as the inferior beings; it is for that reason that the Ancient 


the name of God o'n5x (Elohim). The author of the verse wished to 
designate the universe, and therefore it has been concluded that the 
universe and God are inseparable, since both have one and the same 
name. 

14 In the Zohar really follows nsw 857 1°33 Ipnnk x5) (He took no 
form because of the unordinary).—Jellinek 

15 The original text before me says: 1°71) \—nine lights—Transl. 

16 RYIND ROW TPR TRY POYENOT P12 IR NON MI” > Part 
III, fol. 288a, Idra Zutah. 

1o7p otN—Adam Kadmon, literally: First or original man; 

nxoy pIxX—Adam E-lo-oh, literally: High man.—Transl. 


REDS AD NG So 8 be bat et Bo ye 153 


of the Ancients has chosen it for His own.18 No form, no world 
could subsist before the human form, for it contains all things, 
and all that is, subsists only by virtue of it: without it there 
would be no world, for thus it is written (Prov. III, 19): ‘The 
Lord has through wisdom founded the earth.’ 

But it is necessary to distinguish the higher man (Adam 
d'leeloh) x5:y55 osx from the lower man ynnds ocx (Adam 
d’letatoh), for one could not exist without the other. On that 
form of man rests the perfection of faith in all things, and it is 
that form that is spoken of when it is said that they saw above 
the chariot like the form of a man; and it is of that form that 
Daniel spoke in the following words (Daniel VII, 13): ‘I saw in 
the nightly vision and behold, one like the son of man came with 
the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and 
he was brought near before Him.’”!® ‘Thus, what is called the 
Celestial Man, or the first divine manifestation, is nothing else 
than the absolute form of all that exists; the source of all the other 
forms, or rather of all ideas, the supreme thought, otherwise 
called also the Aoyos or the Word. We do not pretend to 
express here a simple conjecture but an historical fact, the accuracy 
of which will be the more appreciated the more extensive the 
knowledge of the system will become. However, before proceeding, 
we may cite yet these words: “The form of the Ancient (Whose 
«mame be sanctified!) is an unique form which embraces all forms. 
It is the supreme and mysterious wisdom which contains all the 
rest.”20 

3. The ten Sefiroth, if we may believe the authors of the 
Zohar, are already indicated in the Old Testament by as many 


18 ooNAT P2951 TD TOSDNNT TYNAN PROT NIT TT DIN NIP 
SRDIPNY NIPWT ONTD ODIPN ORBIT ORPINY PPNR PRN PRY 9993 NIP 
—Part III, Idra Rabba, fol. 141b. 

19) opp 85D Ow IND TTINSD NNNST ON NO NIN NYT DIN RPPN? 
5. PIN WD? ADIND ‘7 DNIT ROSY ONP RF OWT RIN INT ROONT NTI NPD NT 
—lIbid, fol. 1442. —_ 

20) so Room RIM) PDIPN 997 NOD IM RPMI inne RWI XP NYT KIN 
‘Ry 997 NOSD ANOINC AXSy—Part III, Idra Zutah, fol. 288a. 


154 AH i eRe ASG BEAU eA gs 


special names consecrated to God, the same ten mystical names, 
as we have already remarked, spoken of by St. Jerome in his 
letter to Marcella.24_ An attempt has been made to find them 
also in the Mishnah, since it says there that God created the 
world with ten words, (o5\yn x133 nNMoNo Mwy)? or by 
as many orders issued from His sovereign word.2* Although 
all are equally necessary, yet the attributes and the distinctions 
expressed by them do not give us the same sublime conception 
of the divine nature, but represent it to us under different aspects 
which are called in the language of the Kabbalists “faces,” 
(pox—Anfin, }p\y45—Partzufin) .** 

Simeon ben Yohai and his disciples make frequent use of that 
metaphorical expression, but they do not abuse it as their modern 
successors have done. We shall linger upon this point which is, 
unquestionably, the most important point of the entire Kabbalistic 
science; and before determining the particular character of each 
one of the Sefiroth, we shall cast a glance at the general question 
of their essence; and set forth in a few words the different opinions 
to which they gave rise among the adepts of the doctrine of 
the Kabbalah. 

All Kabbalists have raised these two questions: first, why 
are there Sefiroth? then, what are the Sefiroth considered as a 
whole, whether in relation to themselves, or in relation to God? 
As to the first question, the texts of the Zohar are too positive 
to give room to the least doubt. There are Sefiroth as there are 
names of God, since the two things are confounded in the mind, 
and since the Sefiroth are but the ideas and the things expressed 
by the names. Now, if God could not be named, or if all the 


21 Zohar, Part III, fol. 11b. 

22 But the sense of the Mishnah is no other than that the root 
(Omar—to speak) with reference to God in the story of the creation is 
ae Nea times. Compare Maimonides’ commentary on this Mishnah. 
—Jellinek. 

23 Pirke Aboth, Sec. 5, Mishnah 1. 

a3 newB (Partzufin) is identical with 1528 (Anfin) in its 
meaning; only that the one is of Greek origin (mem@ooti0s), while the 
other is a real Aramean word.—Jellinek 


JHE RAG B BALL AH 155 


names given to Him did not designate a real thing, not only 
would we not know Him, but He would not exist even for 
Himself; for without intelligence He could not comprehend 
Himself, neither could He be wise without wisdom, nor could He 
act without power.”5 

The second question, though, has not been solved by all in 
the same manner. Some, standing on the principle that God is 
immutable, see in the Sefiroth nothing but instruments of the 
divine power, creatures of a superior nature, but differing entirely 
from the first Being. “These are they who would reconcile the 
language of the Kabbalah with the letter of the law.?® Others, 
carrying to its last consequences the old principle that nothing 
can come from nothing, fully identify the ten Sefiroth with the 
divine substance. That which the Zohar calls Ayn-Sof, i.e., the 
Infinite Himself, is in their opinion, the totality of the Sefiroth, 
no more, no less, and each one of the Sefiroth is but a different 
point of view of the same, thus understood, Infinite.?7 

Between these two extremes enters a system much more 
profound and more in accord with the spirit of the original 
Kabbalistic monuments, a system which neither considers the 
Sefiroth as instruments, as creatures, and, consequently, as beings 
distinct from God, nor is it willing to identify them with God. 
Here is a summary of the ideas upon which it rests: God is 
present in the Sefiroth, otherwise He could not reveal Himself 
through them; but He does not dwell in them in His eternity; 
He is more than what is found in the sublime forms of thought 
and of existence. In fact, the Sefiroth can never comprise the 
Ayn-Sof which is the very source of every form, and which, in 


25 Note that Intelligence, Wisdom and Power are names of three 
Sefiroth.—Transl. 

26 At the head of their party stands the author of the book entitled: 
“The Motives of the Commandments” (nixp ‘»yy), Menahem Recante 
who flourished in the beginning of the fourteenth century.* 

* Should read the thirteenth century, as he died in 1290.—Jellinek 

27 This opinion is represented by the author of 717 129 (Mogan 
David—The Shield of David). . 


156 THE KABBALAH 


this capacity, has no form; or, to use the ordinary expression, 
while each one of the Sefiroth has a well known name, the Infinite 
alone has not and can not have any name. God remains, 
therefore, the Ineffable, the Incomprehensible, the Infinite Being, 
high above all the worlds that reveal to us His presence, even 
the world of Emanation. 

By this reasoning they believe to escape the reproach of 
_ disregarding the divine immutability. For the ten Sefiroth may 
be compared to ten vessels of different forms, or to glasses of 
different colors. Whatever vessel we wish to measure with the 
absolute essence of things it remains always the same; and the 
divine light, like the light of the sun, does not change its nature 
with the medium through which it passes. Let us add that these 
vessels and these mediums have in themselves no positive reality ; 
they have no existence of their own; they simply represent the 
limits within which the supreme essence of things has confined 
itself, the different degrees of obscurity with which the divine 
light desired to veil its infinite brightness, so it may be viewed. 
Whence the desire to recognize in the Sefiroth two elements, or 
rather, two different aspects: one, purely external and negative, 
representing the body, the so-called vessel (155 —Kalee) ; the other 
internal, positive, which represents the spirit and the light. 

Thus they could speak of broken vessels?® which let the 
divine light escape. This point of view adopted by Isaac Luria,29 
as well as by Moses Cordovera,®° and presented with much logic 
and precision by the latter, is the one, to say it again, which we 


28 53 4a" (Shivra Kaylim—Broken Vessels). It is said that the 
light of the last three upper Sefiroth gushed forth with such fullness 
into the first Sefiroth of the seven lower ones and so on into the others, 
that they broke.—Jellinek 

29 See Issac Luria, Sefer Drushim (b’%)"7 15D), ad init—a work 
translated by Knorr von Rosenroth and made part of the Kabbalah 
Unveiled. 

30 See Pardes Rimonim (The Garden of Pomgranites), fol. 21-24. 
Besides the lucidity which we must credit with Cordovera, he also 
deserves praise for reporting correctly, and profoundly discussing the 
opinions of his predecessors and of his adversaries. 


RH Gre herASD Bia eA 157 


regard as the most exact historically, and we shall rest thenceforth 
upon it with entire confidence as the basis of all the metaphysical 
part of the Kabbalah. Having established this general principle 
on the authority of the texts and of the most valued commentaries, 
we must indicate now the particular role of every Sefiroh and 
the different manners of the grouping of all the Sefiroth by 
trinities and by persons. 

The first of the highest of all the divine manifestations, in a 
word, the first Sefiroh, is the Crown 4n3° (Kether), so named 
by the very reason of the place assigned to it above all the others. 
“Tt is,” says the text, “the principle of all principles, the mysterious 
wisdom, the highest of all crowns with which all diadems and 
crowns are adorned.’’*! It is not the confused totality, formless, 
nameless; that mysterious unknown that preceded all things, 
even the attributes; that AD ts (Ayn Sof). It represents the 
Infinite as distinguished from the finite; its name in Holy Writ 
signifies I Am, pax  (Ay-Yeh), because it is the absolute 
being; the being considered from a point of view where analysis 
cannot penetrate, where qualifications are not possible, but where 
they are all united in the indivisible point. 

On that ground the first Sefiroh is also called the “primitive 
point,” or simply the “point, m2)3wx7 Atip3 (N’kudoh R’shonoh), 
moiwp maps (N’kudoh P’shutoh). ‘When the Unknown of 
the Unknown wished to manifest Himself, He first produced one 
point ;’’?? as long as this luminous point did not depart from His 
bosom, the Infinite was as yet completely unknown, and shed no 
light at all.23 It is that which the later Kabbalists have explained 
as an absolute concentration of God in His own substance, pyny 
(Tsimtsum). It is this concentration which has brought forth 
space, the primitive air t}p3p 1.1" (Ahveer Kadmon), which is 


81 yond) yy 93 m2 PwyneT XHYS mXsy NInI—Zohar, part II, 
fol. 288b. 

820 NN TIP] RYN TOY NSINNS NI pPornD Sod NONI Xnyws 
—Zohar, part I, fol. 2a. 

33 MIN RPI WTI TN PII WNT 307 Jy 959 pwn xd5—Zohar, 
part I, fol. 15a. 


158 de He CK ASB BgAS ASH 


not a true void, but a certain degree of light inferior to the 
creation. But for the very reason that God retired within 
Himself, He is distinct from all that is finite,°+ limited and 
determined, and for the very reason that it can not be told yet 
what He is, He is designated by a word which signifies: Naught, 
No-Thing, Non-Being, jx (Ayn). 

“They name Him thus,” says the Idra Zutah, “because we do 
not know, and because it can not be known what was in that 
principle (beginning) ; because it is unattainable for our limita- 
tions, yes, even for wisdom.’’3® 36 We must remark that we find 
again the same idea, even the same expression, in one of the 
greatest and most famous systems of metaphysics of which our 
epoch can boast to posterity. “Everything begins,” says Hegel, 
“by the pure state of being, a wholly indeterminate, simple and 
immediate thought, for the true beginning can be nothing else... . 
But that pure being is only the purest abstraction; it is an absolute 
negative term which may be called the non-existent?" if conceived 
in an immediate manner.” 

Finally, to return to our Kabbalists, the mere idea of being, 
or of the Absolute, considered from the point of view which we 
take, constituted a complete form, or to use the usual term, a 
head, a face; they call it the white head p4yyn sw%4—Reeshoh 
Havroh, because all colors, that is to say, all ideas, all determined 
modes are blended in that form, or the “Ancient” ( xpyny — 
Ahteekah), because it is the first of the Sefiroth. But, in the 
last case, we must take care not to confound it with the ‘Ancient 


34 We can not help thinking here of Spinoza’s axiom in the 
fiftieth epistle: Determinatio negatio est.—Jellinek 

35° 891 RNDINI PAINN RT NT RVD NT AO YW KI YI KS 
YR MINK WD 193) -12N5D"M2 —Zohar, part III, fol. 288b. 

36 IT must again follow here Dr. Jellinek’s translation as nearer to 
the original text.—Transl. 

37 Das reine Sein macht den Anfang, weil es sowohl reiner 
Gedanke, als das unbestimmte einfache Unmittelbare ist, der erste 
Anfang aber nichts Vermitteltes und weiter Bestimmtes sein kann. Dieses 
reine Sein ist nun die reine Abstraction, damit das Absolut-Negative, 
welches, gleichfalls unmittelbar genommen, das Nichts ist. 

(Encyclopaedie der philosophischen Wissenschaften, par, 86, u. 87.) 


THE KABBALAH 159 


of Ancients (Ahteekah D’ahteekin— ppnyt xprny), that is to 
say, with the Ayn-Sof Himself, before whom the most dazzling 
light is but a shadow. But it is most generally designated with 
the singular name of “long face” }»53~% 44" (Ahrich Anfin), 
undoubtedly because it contains all the other qualifications and 
all the intellectual and moral attributes of which, by the same 
reasoning, the “small face” is formed pp3x ayy (Z’ere Anfin) .% 

“The first,” says the text, “is the Ancient, seen face to face. 
It is the supreme head, the source of all light, the principle of 
all wisdom, and can be defined only by unity.’’® 

From the bosom of this absolute Unity, distinct from the 
various forms and from all relative unity, go forth, as parallels, 
two principles, opposite in appearance but inseparable in 
reality; one, male or active, which is called “Wisdom,” sp 5n 
(Chachmah), the other passive, or female, is designated by a 
word which it is customary to translate by “Intelligence” 7313 
(Beenah). ‘All that exists,” says the text, “all that has been 
formed by the Ancient (Whose name be sanctified!), can exist 
only by a male and a female.’”*° We shall not insist upon this 
general form which we shall meet frequently as we proceed; we 
believe, though, that in this instance it applies to the subject and 
to the object of intelligence which was not possible to express 
more clearly in an eminently poetical language. 

Wisdom is also named the “father”; for it is said, Wisdom 
engenders all things. By means of thirty-two marvellous ways 
by which it is diffused through the universe, it imposes a form 
and measure on all that is.44 Intelligence is the ‘‘mother,”’ as is 
written: Thou shalt call intelligence by the name of mother 


38) yin wT DON. wD ON NM PHINR TWIN NIPI NOM nyd-ye 
VO TY AosNd onY Nad ’M 92 9519 Rim DIX Tyr —Pardes Rimonim, 
by Moses Cordovera, Ch. III fol. 8. 

39° SNPR DYER TIN NPD RYIID NP NYT PDIND DSN IDSNON FD 
—Zohar, part III, fol. 292b, 289b. 

40 5710) DT YD PPM NSD NIPNNS NY RY ID RD NYT Rnye 
RDP) «D593 « pYpnx xSD—Ib., part III, fol. 290a. 

41 Rp mponn) NDT RV IP RP nyo PDs AK UNA ThONd AN ALN 
Posy Pant pnon powans ms ..xson—Ib. supr. 


160 THE RA BiBeA ae 


(Prov. II, 3).42 Without destroying the antithesis established 
as the general condition of existence, they, nevertheless, cause often 
the female or passive principle to spring forth from the male 
principle.42 From their mysterious and eternal union comes forth 
a son, who according to the original expression, takes at one and 
the same time the features of his father and of his mother, bearing 
witness to both of them. ‘This son of Wisdom and Intelligence, 
‘called also, because of double inheritance, the “first-born” is 
Knowledge or Science, nyt (Da-ath). 

These three persons contain and unite all that was, is and will 
be; but they are, in their turn, reunited in the white head, in the 
Ancient of Ancients, for a// is He, and He is all and in all.4* At 
times he is represented with three heads which form but one head, 
and at times he is compared to the brain which, without losing 
its unity, is divided into three parts, and by means of thirty-two 
pairs of nerves spreads into the entire body, as Divinity spreads 
into the universe by means of the thirty-two ways of wisdom. 
“The Ancient (Whose name be sanctified!) exists with three 
heads which form but one head only, and that head is the most 
exalted among the most exalted things. And because the Ancient 
(Whose name be blessed!) is represented by the number three 
(nona ovine xw op Np NYT 1931), all the other lights (the 
other Sefiroth) which receive light from Him, are also comprised 
in the number three.’’4° 

In the following passage the terms of that trinity are somewhat 
different ; we see there the Ayn-Sof himself, but, on the other hand, 
we do not find there “Intelligence,” no doubt because it is but 
a reflex, a certain expansion or dimension of the Logos which is 


420 80pN 7939 BX 9D 3NDT ON 7392 OX NOMN—lIb. supr. 
4300 81 N3P121 97 NINwNI ID 13D PDN? OYBNR NOsn oNNT —Ib. 


44 Pop D 902 13 NAT p90 YW 73 ASN PPK 13) AXY AX ANA 
ee PAIN CHIT P92 NID MPR RAD YON RNID AT APRs NON 
809 999993 7D POND Ma PpPyny Sot; XP NY NwosIp Nop. POND 39R) 
RTP ROD NT RID NIN—Zohar, part III, fol. 291a and b. 

45 Idra Zutah, book III, fol. 288b. 


ish te ABE be ALT ASH 161 


called here ‘“Wisdom.” ‘There are three heads sculptured one 
in the other, and one above the other. One head is the secret, 
hidden wisdom which is never unveiled. ‘The mysterious wisdom 
is the supreme principle of all other wisdom. Above that first 
head is the Ancient (Whose name be sanctified!), the most 
mysterious of all the mysteries. Finally, comes the head which 
dominates all the other heads, a head which is not a head. No 
one knows nor can know what that head contains, for it joins 
neither science nor our understanding. Because of that, the 
Ancient (Whose name be sanctified!) is called the No-Thing ( }ox 
—Eye-in)’4® Thus, unity in being, and trinity in intellectual 
manifestations or in thought—this is the exact summing up of 
what we have just said. 

Sometimes the terms, or, if we wish, the persons of this trinity, 
are represented as three successive and absolutely necessary phases 
in existence as well as in thought, or to use an expression accepted 
in Germany, as a logical process showing at the same time the 
generation of the world. Whatever astonishment that fact may 
excite, it will not be doubted when the following lines have been 
read: ‘Come and see that thought is the principle of all that 
is; as such it is at first ignored and confined within itself. When 
thought begins to diffuse, it arrives at the degree where it becomes 
spirit #7 arrived at that point, it takes the name of intelligence, 
and is not, as before, confined within itself. The spirit or mind 
itself develops from the very bosom of the mysteries by which it 


46 As I have digressed here from both the original French text and 

the German translation in my endeavor to keep to the text of the Zohar, 
I deem it my duty to give the text as it is printed in the Zohar, part 
III, fol. 288a and b. 
RNYIN SIM RW RT WO NROYD NT ST 1D 199 NT OTBOaNN fe oSn 
mya 932 RYOD OARDND RT NNO 6OANENDO 38>) NMDSNNRT AKON 
oot) NY ond 3935 kon RVI RP NY ARSY Kw NPI ANY T 
PAINE ROT RT RWI VT DD YRWNR RP YW NO NWOT YS Rv, Reg 
PR OWPR RL KP NY TW a3) ...19NdIID2 N51 NN INI—Transl. 

47 In the Zohar—x iv N8F1N5 TNkS Ink, which is translated more 
correctly with “where the spirits rest”; otherwise the entire passage 
is unintelligible-—Jellinek 


162 THE. KALB BVAVL AH 


is surrounded, and a voice goes forth which is the union of all 
the heavenly choirs; a voice that speaks distinctly and in articulate 
words; for it comes from the spirit. But in reflecting upon all 
these degrees, you will find that the thought, the intelligence, this 
voice and this word are one and the same thing; that the thought 
is the beginning of all that is, and that there can be no interrup- 
tion in it. True thought is bound to Naught (}»~—Eye-in), 
-and is never parted from it. “That is the meaning of the words: 
Jehovah is One and His name is One.’’48 

Here is another passage where the same idea is easily 
recognized under a more original and, as it seems to us, a more 
ancient form: “The name which signifies I Am >" (A-yeh), 
shows the union of all that is, the degree where all the ways of 
wisdom are as yet hidden and united at one place, and can as yet 
not be distinguished one from another. But when a line of 
demarkation is established, when it is intended to designate the 
mother bearing in her bosom all things and about to bring them 
forth in order to reveal the supreme name, then, speaking of 
Himself, God says: I Who Am, p nN WwR (Asher A-yeh).?° 
Finally, when all has been well formed and has departed from 
the maternal bosom, when everything is in its place, and when it 
is intended to designate the particular as well as the existence, 
God calls Himself Jehovah, or, 1 Am that I Am, >>7x GwR spaE 
{A-yeh asher A-yeh). ‘These are the mysteries of the holy name 
revealed to Moses, and of which no other man shared the 
knowledge with him.’ 

The system of the Kabbalah does not, therefore, rest solely 
on the principle of emanation or upon the unity of substance. 


48 Part I, fol. 246b, Sect. %m. As this passage is too long to be 
quoted entire, we shall cite here the last words only. A2wny x RIM 
YOD AIWNYD PRI WW RWVWPI IN NOD NON NWIBMNT NF NII RNWR 

STHS OW) THK 9 ON ORT PSYS = BIBNN ROT PRD WPM 

49 The word “wx (Asher) is a sign of determination. 

50 ANSY NOON YVRT NWT NIT PPR 1N3d NSIT NDSD ONT OTA 
2? IDS WANN. IW IW $3 IPNAN RID P BIT AWN LTR IWR FON NIDA 
mio nx—Part III, fol. 55b, sect. 


THE KABBALAH 163 


As we see, the Kabbalists went further. They taught a doctrine 
very similar to the doctrine which the metaphysicians of Germany 
now regard as the greatest glory of our time. They, the Kabbalists, 
believed in the absolute identity of thought and of existence; and 
consequently, the world, as we shall see later, could be to them 
nothing else than the expression of ideas, or of absolute forms of 
intelligence; in short, they give us a glimpse into the union of 
Plato and Spinoza. ‘To clear this important fact of all doubt, 
and to show at the same time that the most learned of the modern 
Kabbalists have remained true to the traditions of their pre- 
decessors, we will add to the texts we have translated from the 
Zohar a very remarkable passage from the commentaries of 
Cordovera: 

“The three first Sefiroth, to wit: the Crown, Wisdom and 
Intelligence, should be regarded as one and the same thing. The 
first represents knowledge or science, the second represents the 
knower, and the third represents the known. ‘To explain this. 
identity we must know that the knowledge of the Creator is not 
like the knowledge of the created, for with the latter knowledge 
is distinct from the subject of knowledge, and bears upon objects 
which, in their turn, are distinct from the subject. This is 
designated by the following three terms: the thought, that which 
thinks, and the thing thought of. The Creator, on the other hand, 
is in Himself the knowledge, the knower and the known. In 
fact, His manner of knowing does not consist in applying His 
thought to things outside of Him, for it is by understanding and 
knowing Himself that He knows and perceives all that is. Nothing 
exists that is not one with Him and that He does not find in 
His own substance. He is the type ( —typus) of all being, 
and all things exist in Him under their purest and most accom- 
plished forms; so that the perfection of the creatures is inherent 
in this very existence by which they were united to the source of 
their being,5' and in measure as they recede from that source, 


51) px*ypp2 amnon kiNn Andon mixx. oniD oy 


164 THE RAB s BoA Ti AE. 


they fall away from that perfect and sublime state. It is thus 
that all sorts of existence in this world have their form in the 
Sefiroth, and the Sefiroth have their form in the source from 
which they emanate.’’®* 

The seven attributes which we still have to speak of, and 
which are called by the modern Kabbalists the Sefiroth of the 
_ Construction (932m mYpD—Sefiroth Habinyon), undoubtedly 
because they are of more immediate service for the edification of 
the world, develop, like the preceding attributes, in the form of 
trinities, in each one of which two extremes are united by 2 
middle term.53 From the bosom of divine thought, which alone 
attained its fullest manifestation, proceed first two opposite 
principles, one active or male, the other female or passive. 

In “grace” or “mercy,” 3pm (Hessed) we find the principle 
of the first, the second is represented by “judgment, 314 (Din).’* 
But it is easily seen from the part held by the two principles in 
the whole of the system, that this grace and this judgment are 
not to be taken literally; we treat here of what we could call 
the expansion and the contraction of the will. In fact, it is from 
the first one that the male souls spring, and from the second spring 
the female souls. These two attributes are called also the “two 
arms of God”; one gives life, the other gives death. "Were they 
separated the world could not subsist; it is even impossible for 
them to act separately, for according to the original expression, 
there is no judgment without mercy;®° they also combine in a 


52 Pardes Rimonim, fol. 55a. 
53 Is it not entirely according to the Hegelian method ?—Jellinek 


54 “Tudgment” as translated by Jellinek is more correct and has 
been followed here. “Justice,” as used by the author, would be (Tsedek). 
According to Gesenius “Din” has the meaning of “to judge (and thus 
to reign).” I would say that “Din” represents justice untempered by 
mercy.—Transl. 


55 ONS NOT St NT NSD NT ONPSD RS ID 9392) YON) NOT TwPNN 
on m3 1n—Zohar, part III, fol. 143b. 


THE KABBALAH 165 


common centre “Beauty’®® whose gross symbol is the breast or 
the heart.5? 

It is remarkable that the beautiful is considered here as the 
expression and as the result of all moral qualities, or as the sum 
of all that is good. But the three following attributes are purely 
dynamic, that is to say, they represent the Deity as the Cause, 
as the universal force, as the generative principle of all beings. 
The first two, which represent in this new sphere, the male and 
the female principle, are called, conformably to a text of the 
Holy Scriptures, “Triumph” my) (Netsach), and “Glory,” 57 
(Hode). It would be difficult to find the meaning of the two 
words were they not followed by this definition: “By the words 
“Triumph’ and ‘Glory’ we understand extension,®°*® multiplication 
and force; for all the forces that spring up in the universe start 
from their bosom, and for this reason these two Sefiroth are 
called the hosts of the Eternal.’’®9 

They united in a common principle, ordinarily represented by 
the organs of generation which can not denote anything but the 
generative element, or the source, the root of all that is. For 
this reason it is called the “foundation” or basis, q\p» (Y’sod). 
“All things,” reads the text, “will re-enter the basis from which 
they issued forth. All the marrow, all the sap, all the power is 
gathered in that place. All existing forces issue from it by the 
organ of generation.” These three attributes also form but one 
single face, one single aspect of the divine nature, represented in 


the Bible by the ‘““God of Hosts.’’®® As to the last of the Sefiroth, 


56 9938p) NID «9959 NIRAN RD MIXPN IND PIN RIN NdPD3 
.82°93 —Part III, fol. 269a. 

57 And yet the heart is taken as the symbol of understanding.°— 
Jellinek 

@ Based on Isaiah VI, 10; XXXII, 4; Daniel V, 12; Proverbs 
II, 2.—Transl. 

xnum (Mesh-cha) really means the measure.—Jellinek 

59 Pb) 11D PPbIT PSN 97 WINN wa KAY May KNwWo $3) 
S14 AYD PIN MINA WIP pd 1232%—Zohar, part III, fol. 296a. 

60 1D) OUPR MINDS TIDY YIPRY NB 993 NOWYD NIT XOX—Ib. 


supr. 


166 OH OR ReAL BS BEA AarH 


or “Kingdom, njp5 (Malkuth),” all Kabbalists agree that it 
does not express any new attribute; but simply the harmony which 
exists between all the other attributes and their absolute rule 
over the world. 

Thus the ten Sefiroth which, in their entirety, form the 
Heavenly or Ideal Man, called by the modern Kabbalists the 
“world of emanation,” nj\Syx oS;y (Olam Atzilus), is divided 
into three classes, each one of which shows us the deity in a 
different aspect, but always in the form of an indivisible trinity. 
The first three Sefiroth are purely intellectual or metaphysical. 
They express the absolute identity of existence and thought, and 
form, what modern Kabbalists have called, the “intelligible 
world,” S5yx5 oS3y (Olam Muskol). The three Sefiroth 
following have a moral character; on the one hand they make 
us conceive God as the identity of kindness and wisdom, on the 
other hand they show us that the source of beauty and magnificence 
is in kindness or rather in the supreme good. ‘They have there- 
fore been named the “virtues,” nym (Midoth), or the “world 
of feeling,’ wap odiy (Olam Murgosh), in the loftiest meaning 
of the word. Finally, we learn by the last of these attributes that 
the universal providence, the supreme architect, is also the absolute 
force, the all-powerful cause, and that this cause is at the same 
time the generating element of all that is. These last Sefiroth 
constitute the “natural world,” or nature in its essence and in its 
principle, natura naturans, yopipn oy (Olam Hamutbah).® 

How and in what terms these different aspects are brought 
back to unity, and consequently to a supreme trinity, the following 
passage will show: “In order to acquire the knowledge of a holy 
unity, we must examine the flame which rises from a fire-place 
or from a lighted lamp; we see then, at first, two kinds of light, 
a glistening white one and a black or blue one; the white light 
is above and rises in a straight line, the black or blue light is 


81 See Pardes Rimonim, fol. 66b, 1st col. 


Hoke VRCA TH: BAT AGH 167 


beneath, and appears to be the seat of the first; yet the two lights 
are so closely united that they form one single flame only. But 
the seat formed by the blue or black light is, in its turn, attached 
to the wick which is still under it. The white light never 
changes, it always remains white; but several shades are dis- 
tinguished in the lower light. The lower light takes, moreover, 
two opposite directions; above it is attached to the white light, 
and below it is attached to the burning matter, but this matter 
continually consumes itself, and constantly rises towards the upper 
light. It is thus that all that is joins again to the one unity, 
Sn& DDS AWwpns xo0)."2 To dispel all doubt as to the 
meaning of this allegory, we may add that is it found, almost 
literally reproduced, in another part®*® of the Zohar, to explain the 
nature of the human soul which also forms a trinity, a feeble 
image of the supreme trinity. 

This last species of trinity which explicitly comprises all the 
others, and which sums up the entire theory of the Sefiroth, plays 
also the most important part in the Zohar. Like the preceding 
trinities, it is represented by three terms only, each one of which 
has already been represented as the highest manifestation of one 
of the lower trinities. Among the metaphysical attributes it is the 
“Crown;” among the moral attributes it is ‘“Beauty;” among the 
inferior attributes it is “Kingdom.” But what is meant by the 
“Crown” in the allegorical language of the Kabbalists? It is the 
substance, the one and absolute being. What is “Beauty?” It 
is, as the Idra Zuta expressly says, “‘the highest expression of 
moral life and of moral perfection.” As an emanation from 
intelligence and mercy, it is often compared to the orient, to the 
sun whose light is reflected equally by all earthly objects, and 
without which all would return to darkness; in a word it is 
the ideal. 

Finally, what is “Kingdom?” It is the permanent and immi- 


62 Zohar, part I, fol. 51a, sect. now. (Breshith), 
63 Part II, sect. 3178 (Pekudah).—Jellinek 


168 (HE eRe AnD (Bea ee elt 


nent action of all the Sefiroth combined, the actual presence of 
God in the creation. This idea is fully expressed by the word 
Shekinah (3°5w ), one of the surnames of the “Kingdom.” The 
true terms of this new trinity are, accordingly, the absolute, the 
ideal and the immanent face; or also, the substance, the thought 
and the life; that is, the uniting of the thought with the 
object. They constitute what is called ‘the middle column” 
NMyYpNT Noy (Amudah D’amtzissoh), because in all the 
figures customarily used to represent the Sefiroth they are placed 
in the centre, one above another, in the form of a vertical line 
or column. As may be expected of what we already know, these 
three terms also become so many “faces” or symbolical manifesta- 
tions. The “Crown” does not change its name, it is always the 
“long face,” the “Ancient of days,” “the Ancient Whose name be 
sanctified” syoap xpyny (Ateekah K’deeshah). ‘‘Beauty’’ is the 
“holy king,” or simply the “King” s55m (Malko), »xwmp xo5n 
(Malko K’deeshah), and the ‘“Shekinah,” the divine presence 
in things, is the ‘“Matrona,” or “Queen” xn1319 ( Matrooneitha). 

When the one is compared to the sun, the other is compared 
to the moon; because the moon borrows all the light by which 
it shines from a higher place, from a degree immediately above 
her. In other words, real existence is only a reflection or image 
of ideal beauty.. The “Matrona” is also called “Eve,” “for,” 
says the text, “Eve is the mother of all things, and everything that 
exists here below, nurses from her breast and is blessed through 
her.’64 The “King” and the “Queen,” commonly called also 
the “two faces” 1 BI¥5B 11 (Doo Partsufin),® form together a 
pair whose task is to pour forth constantly upon the world new 
grace, and through their union to continue the work of the 
creation, or, what is more, to perpetuate the work of the creation. 

64 (S59 DR SNPNR RIM PDIAND Aad PPI we RXNNMH NIK 95—Idra 


Zutah, ad fin. 
65 Zohar, part III, fol. 10b, sect. xv) (Vah-yikrah), 


THE KABBALAH 169 


But the mutual love which impels them to this work, bursts forth 
in two ways, and produces consequently fruits of two kinds. 

Sometimes it comes from above, going from the husband to 
the wife, and from there to the entire universe; that is to say, 
existence and life, starting from the depths of the intelligible 
world, tend to multiply more and more in the objects of nature. 
Sometimes, on the contrary, it comes from below, going from the 
wife to the husband, from the real world to the ideal world, from 
earth to heaven, and brings back to the bosom of God the beings 
capable of demanding their return. 

The Zohar itself offers us an example of these two modes 
of generation in the circular course run by the holy souls. The 
soul, considered in its purest essence, has its root in intelligence, 
I mean the Supreme intelligence where the forms of the beings 
begin to differentiate themselves one from another, and which is 
really the universal soul. From there it passes, if it is to be a 
male soul, by the principle of grace or expansion; if it is to be 
a female soul, it impregnates itself with the principle of judgment 
or concentration. Finally, it is brought forth into the world where 
we live by the union of the King and the Queen, “‘who,” as the 
text reads, “are to the generation of the soul, what man and 
woman are to the physical generation—the generation of the 
body.’®* By this road the soul descends to earth. 

Now, here is the way the soul returns to the bosom of God: 
When adorned with all the virtues, it has fulfilled its mission and 
is mature for heaven, it rises of its own impulse, by the love it 
inspires as well as by the love it experiences, and with it rises 
also the last degree of emanation or real existence, which is thus 
brought in harmony with the ideal form. The King and the 
Queen unite anew, impelled by another cause and for another 
purpose than the first one.6? ‘In this manner,” says the Zohar, 


66 s5qD xNNnST N5y2 AMD NPHI RN II) ROT RID REID Now 
.82~)3—Zohar, part III, fol. 7. 

67 To avoid the piling up of citations, I refer to Cordovera’s Pardes 
Rimonim, pgs. 60-64, where all the citations are collected. 


170 THE KABBALAH 


“life is drawn simultaneously from above and from below. The 
source Is renewed and the sea, always refilled, distributes its 
waters to every place.’®8 

The union may take place accidentally while the soul is still 
chained to the body. But there we touch upon ecstasy, mystic 
rapture and the dogma of reversibility, of which we have decided 


to speak elsewhere. 

We believe, however, that our exposition of the Sefiroth would 
be incomplete without the mention of the figures which have been 
used to depict them to the eye. ‘There are three principal figures, 
of which two at least are sanctioned by the Zohar. One shows 
the Sefiroth in the form of ten concentric circles, or rather of 
nine circles traced around a point which is their common centre. 
The other represents the Sefiroth as the human body. ‘The 
“crown” is the head; ‘‘wisdom” the brain; “intelligence” the 
heart; the trunk and the breast, in short, the middle column, is 
the symbol of “beauty”; the arms are the symbols of “grace” and 
“judgment”; the lower parts of the body express the remaining 
attributes. 

It is upon these wholly arbitrary tales, carried to their last 
exaggeration in the “Tikkunim” (the supplements to the Zohar), 
that the practical Kabbalah and the claim to combat bodily ills 
with the different names of God®® are mostly founded. Besides, 
this is not the first time that ideas have been gradually smothered 
even by the grossest symbols, and thoughts replaced by forms at 
the decadence of a doctrine. Finally, the last manner of repre- 
senting the ten Sefiroth is to divide them into three groups. ‘To 
the right, on a vertical line, we see represented the attributes 
which may be called expansive; namely: the Logos or Wisdom, 
Mercy and Strength;’® to the left we find placed in the same 


68 end) DSNYR NO. NSONN RVD RMN NYO Orn AD ne pty 
8539 3n’—Zohar, part I, fol. 60-70. 

69 We must remember that the names of God correspond also to 
the Sefiroth.—Jellinek 

70 In order to make the figure usually called also 159% (Eelon— 


THE KABBALAH 171 


manner, on a parallel line, those which designate resistance or 
concentration: Intelligence, i.e., the consciousness of the Logos, 
Judgment and so-called resistance. In the centre finally are the 
substantial attributes which we have included in the supreme 
trinity. At the top, above the common level, we read the name 
of the crown, and at the base we read the name of kingdom.” 

The Zohar often alludes to this figure, which it compares to a 
tree of which the Ayn-Sof is its life and sap, and which was later 
called the ‘‘Kabbalistic tree.” At each step we are reminded there 
of the “column of mercy” (spn xt\py—Amoodah D hessed, 
xDD? NIYD—Sitra Y’meenah—the “right column’) , of the 
“column of judgment” (yx9-55 xt\py—Amoodah D’dinah, 
NoDwT NIDD—Sitra D’smolah—‘“the left column”) and ofthe 
“centre column” (xnyyort NTpY—Amoodah D’amtsee-othoh). 
This does not prevent this same diagram from representing to 
us, in another plan, by horizontal lines, the three secondary 
trinities of which we have previously spoken. Besides these 
diagrams, modern Kabbalists have conceived also “canals” ( nyqy3¥ 
—Tsnooroth) which indicate in a material form all possible 
relations and combinations between the _ Sefiroth. Moses 
Cordovera tells of an author who could make six hundred 
thousand of such combinations. These subtleties may interest to 
a certain degree the science of calculus, but we search there in 
vain for a metaphysical idea. 

A strange idea, in a still stranger form, mingles in the Zohar 
with the doctrine of the Sefiroth which we have just explained. 
It is the idea of a fall and a rehabilitation, even in the sphere of 


tree) plain to the reader, and in order to point out some inconsistencies 
in the rendition of the names of which the author is guilty, I refer to 
the diagram.4—Jellinek. 

2 The diagram here shown is not copied from Dr. Jellinek’s book, 
but is taken from Cordovera’s “Pardes Rimonim.” I have chosen this 
diagram because it also makes clear the interrelations of the Sefiroth— 
Transl. 

- 71 See Pardes Rimonim, fol. 34-39, (1na,py 7D “iyw) for all these 
gures, 


172 THE KABBACLA H 


the divine attributes; of a creation that failed because God did 
not descend with it to dwell in it; because He has yet not assumed 
that intermediary form between Himself and the creature of 
which man here below is the most perfect expression. ‘These, 
apparently different conceptions, have been united into a single 
thought which is found, now more developed, now less developed, 
in the Book of Mystery in the two Idras and in some fragments 
of less importance. It is presented in the following strange 
manner: in the Book of Genesis’* mention is made of seven kings 
of Edom who preceded the kings of Israel, and enumerating them 
it mentions their successive deaths to show the order in which 
they succeeded one another. The authors of the Zohar took hold 
of this text, which in itself is foreign to such an order of ideas, 
to fasten to it their belief in a kind of revolution in the invisible 
world of the divine emanation. By the “kings of Israel” they 
understand the two forms of absolute existence which are personi- 
fied in the “King” and the “Queen,” who, by dividing absolute 
existence for the sake of our feeble intelligence, represent the true 
essence of being. The ‘Kings of Edom”’ or, as they are also called, 
the “ancient kings,” are worlds which could neither subsist nor be 
realized before those forms were established which serve as 
intermediaries between the creation and the divine essence as 
considered in its entire purity. 

However, we believe that the better way of expounding 
without impairing this obscure portion of the system, would be to 
cite some fragments that refer to it and which explain themselves 
reciprocally. “Before the Ancient of Ancients, the most hidden 
among the hidden, had prepared the forms of the kings and the 
first diadems, there was neither limitation nor end. He, therefore, 
took to sculpturing and tracing these forms in His own substance. 
He stretched before Him a veil, and in that veil He sculptured the 
kings, and traced their limits and their forms; but they could not 
subsist. Therefore it is written: these are the kings that reigned in 


72 Genesis, ch. XXXVI, 31-40.. 


Te HRA BIRCA BoA 173 


the land of Edom before a king reigned over the children of Israel. 
Here are dealt with the primitive kings and _ primitive 
Israel.7* All the kings thus formed had their names, but they 
could not subsist until He (the Ancient) descended to them and 
veiled Himself for them.’ 

There can be no doubt that these lines refer to a creation 
which anteceded ours, and to worlds that preceded ours. The 
Zohar itself tells us so in the most positive terms further on,” 
and this is also the unanimous belief of all the modern Kabbalists. 
But why did the ancient worlds disappear? Because God did not 
dwell in their midst regularly and constantly, or, as the text reads, 
because God had not come down to them; because He had as yet 
not shown Himself in a form that permitted Him to be present 
in the creation, and to perpetuate it by this very union. The 
worlds which He then produced by a spontaneous emanation from 
His own substance, are compared to sparks which escape in 
disorder from a common hearth and which die out in proportion 
to their distance from it. “Ancient worlds there were which had 
been destroyed, formless worlds which have been called “sparks” 
yyy ow ppr) ; for thus it is when striking the iron the 
blacksmith causes sparks to burst forth on all sides. These sparks 
are the ancient worlds, and these worlds were destroyed and 
could not exist because the Ancient (Whose name be sanctified!) 
has as yet not assumed His form, and the workman was not as 
yet at his work.’’*6 

Now then, what is that form without which neither duration 
nor organization in the finite beings is possible, which, properly 
speaking, represents the artisan in the divine works, and by 


73 The word “primitive” %!07?>—; Kadmon in the Zohar is always 
a synonym of ideal, celestial and intelligible. 

74 Idra Rabba, part III, 148a, Amsterdam Ed. 

75 .ny9 SyNNY PSY VANDI AW ROSY INT T’aPH NID Rd IY —Zohar, 
part III, fol. 61a. 

76 Idra Zutah, part III of the Zohar, fol. 292, Amsterdam ed. 
Ppt OSPR RID NI AW RPT RN WANN NPN NII NDI Psy 

Mei) be ee 


174 TH ES KA BB AIL ATH 


which, finally, God communicates, and in some sort reproduces 
Himself outside of Himself? It is the human form conceived 
in its highest generality, which comprises the moral and intellectual 
attributes of our nature as well as the conditions of its develop- 
ment and perpetuation, in a word, sexual differentiation, which 
the Zohar admits for the soul as well as for the body. This 
conception of sexual differentiation, or rather, the division and 
reproduction of the human form, is to them the symbol of universal 
life, of a regular and infinite development of existence, of a 
regular and continuous creation not alone through duration, but 
also through successive realization of all the possible forms of 
existence. 

We have met before with the root of this idea; but here 
is something more. ‘The gradual expansion of life, existence, 
and of divine thought did not begin immediately below the 
substance; it was preceded by that tumultous disorderly and, if 
I may say, inorganic emanation of which we have just spoken. 
“Why were the old worlds destroyed? Because man was not yet 
formed. The form of man contains all things, and all things 
can be maintained by it. As this form did not exist yet, the 
worlds that preceded it could neither subsist nor maintain them- 
selves. They fell in ruins, until the form of man was established. 
They were then reborn with it, but under other names.”77 

We do not wish to prove by new passages the sexual! distinction 
either in the ideal man or in the divine attributes; we only wish 
to note here that this distinction, which is repeated under so many 
different forms in the Zohar, is also given the characteristic name 
of the balance (xSpny—Maskaloh). “Before the balance was 
established,” says the Book of Mystery, “they (the King and the 
Queen, the ideal world and the real world) did not see one 
another face to face, the first kings died because they could find 
no subsistence, and the earth was ruined ... the balance is 
suspended in a place that is not (the primitive naught) ; they who 


77 Idra Rabba, ib. 135a, b. 


OH a eK Aub BPA LeAL Hy 175 


were to be weighed do not exist as yet. It is an entirely inward 
balance that has no other support but itself, and it is invisible. 


This balance carries and will carry everything that is not, that 
is and will be.’”7§ 


The previous citation taught us that the kings of Edom, the 
ancient worlds, did not entirely disappear. For in the Kabbalistic 
system nothing comes into existence and nothing perishes in an 
absolute manner. They only lost their place, which was the 
actual universe; and when God stepped out of Himself to show 
Himself again in the form of Man, they were resuscitated, came 
to life again, in some sort, to enter under other names into the 
general system of the creation. “When it is said ‘the kings of 
Edom are dead,’ it is not meant that they really died, or that 
they were totally destroyed; for every sinking down from a 
previous degree is called death.’’”® They really did sink quite 
low, or rather they rose but little above the nihility; for they 
were placed on the last step of the universe. “They represent the 
purely passive existence, or, to use the expression of the Zohar, 
judgment without mercy, a place where all is sterness and 
judgment (tpn Panxny 1-5 INnN2),2° or where all is feminine 
without any masculine principle (sop9t nx), that is, a place 
where everything is resistance and inertia as in matter. 

For that reason also they were called the Kings of Edom, 
because Edom was the opposite of Israel who represents mercy, 
life, spiritual and active existence. “Taking most of these expres- 
sions literally, we may say with the modern Kabbalists, that the 
ancient worlds became a place of chastisement for crime, and that 
from their ruins came forth those malevolent beings who serve 
as instruments for divine justice. The idea would remain 
unchanged thereby, for, as we may convince ourselves further 
on, the punishment of guilty souls consists, according to the Zohar, 


73 mye NIDD, ch. ad init. 
79 Tdra Rabba, part III of Zohar, fol. 135b. 
80 Idra Rabba, ib., fol. 142a—Idra Zutah, ad finem. 


176 THE KATE SS CAC AGH 


where metempsychosis plays such a great part, precisely in a rebirth 
into the lowest degree of the creation, and in SUDmItInE more 
and more to the bondage of matter. 

As to the demons, who are always called by the significant 
name of the “shells” (n\p°5p —Klippoth ),*! they are nothing more 
than matter itself, and the passions that depend on it. Thus, 
every form of existence, from matter to eternal wisdom, is a 
manifestation, or rather, an emanation of the Infinite Being. That 
all things may have reality and continuance, it is not sufficient 
for them to come from God; it is also necessary that God be in 
their midst at all times, that He live, expand and reappear 
eternally and infinitely in their own appearance; for should He 
choose to leave them to themselves, they would vanish like a 
shadow. Better still! this shadow is a part of the chain of 
divine manifestations; it is the shadow which is the matter, it is 
the shadow that marks the boundary where life and spirit dis- 
appear from our sight. It is the end, as ideal man is the beginning. 
Upon this principle, then, the Kabbalistic cosmology and psychology 
are founded, 


81 The root of the word nip’3p “Klippoth” is "5p (Kolauf or 
Kalof)—to pare, unshell, peel. I have therefore chosen “shells” as 
the most appropriate. The author’s rendition of this word by 
“envelopes”—wrapper, cover, envelope, casing—does not seem to me to 
be correct etymologically, at least. Dr. Jellinek translates it by 
“Schalen,” and gives the Latin word “cortices” as explanatory.—Transl. 


CHAPTER IV 


CONTINUATION OF THE ANALYSIS 
OF THE ZOHAR 


THE KABBALISTS’ VIEW OF THE WORLD 


_ What we know of the opinion of the Kabbalists concerning 
the divine nature, exempts us from dwelling upon their method 
of conception concerning the creation and the origin of the world; 
for, at bottom, these two things are huddled in their minds. If 
God unites in Him in their infinite totality, thought as well as 
existence, it is quite certain that nothing can exist and nothing 
can be conceived outside (extra) of Him. All, then, that we 
know, whether through reason or through experience, is a 
development or a particular aspect of the Absolute; a substance, 
eternal, inert and distinct from God is a chimera, and the creation, 
as ordinarily conceived, is an impossibility. 

The last deduction is clearly admitted in the following 
words: ‘The indivisible point (the absolute) that had no limits 
and that could not be conceived because of its intensity and purity, 
spread outward and formed a tent which served as a cover to this 
indivisible point. This tent, although of a light less pure than 
the indivisible point, was still too brilliant to be looked at; it 
spread, in its turn, outward, and this expansion was its garment. 
Thus, everything comes into existence by an ever-descending 
motion; thus, finally, it was that the universe took shape 
NDOYT NDIDN WN NOD).”2 We remember also that the Absolute 


2 onVRI TY NID NT WASNN) NID NT YBN ANAS AXDIP AMIPID 
NOOYT KIPN NT 93 ...8IF NLVID NRI—Zohar, part I, fol. 20a. 


177 


178 Poe RAS RB CARL ARE 


Being and the visible nature have but one name, the meaning of 
which is “God.” Another passage teaches us that the voice which 
departs from the spirit, and which is identical with it in the 
supreme thought, is really water, air and fire; the north, the 
south, the east, the west and all the forces of nature. But all 
these elements and all these forces are united into one single 
thing—the voice which comes from the spirit. Matter, finally, 
considered from the most general point of view, is the lowest 
part of the mysterious lamp just described. 

With such a viewpoint, the Kabbalists claim to remain true 
to the popular belief that by the power of the divine word alone 
the world came forth from nothing. But we know already that 
the last word “nothing” had quite another meaning for them. 
This point in their doctrine is very clearly shown by one of the 
commentators of the Sefer Yetzirah. ‘‘When it is mantained that 
all things were called forth from nothingness, it is not meant 
nothingness in its proper sense, for something can never come from 
nothing. But what is meant here is the no-thing that can not 
be conceived either through its cause or through its essence; in 
short, it is the Cause of Causes. It is what we call the primitive 
no-thing, }}o7p }}~—Ayn Kadmon, because it antecedes the 
universe; and by this we mean not alone material objects, but 
also the wisdom on which the world was founded. If we now 
inquire for the essence of wisdom and how it stays in the no-thing 
or in the Supreme Crown, no one will be able to answer this 
question, for in the no-thing there is no distinction and no manner 
of existence. Nor do we understand any better how wisdom is 
united with life.”® All Kabbalists, ancient and modern, thus 
explain the dogma of the creation. But, consistent with them- 


2 DIN PDS PINT RMI ND} ROND 2999 NOD PYDNY OWEN RN IND 
3 ANY $33 R952 NSP NM) NMItD1—Zohar, part I, fol. 246b, sect. nN" 
(Va-Y’chi). 

3 Commentary of Abraham Dior, 17”285, on the Sefer Yetzirah. 
Rittangel ed., p. 65. 


THE KABBALAH 179 


selves, they also admit the second part of the adage: ex nihilo 
nihil. They believe just as little in absolute annihilation, as in 
a creation commonly understood. ‘‘Nothing,” says the Zohar, 
“is lost in the world, not even the vapor that comes from our 
mouths; like everything else it has its place and its destination, 
and the Holy One, blessed be He, makes it co-operative with His 
works, Nothing falls into a void, not even the words and voice 
of man, for all things have their place and their destination.’ 
These words were spoken by an unknown old man, in the 
presence of several disciples of Yohai, and the latter must have 
recognized in them one of the most important articles of their 
faith, for they hastened to interrupt by the following words: 
“Oh, what have you done, old man? Would it not have been 
better to keep silent? For now, there you are, carried away on 
an immense sea without sail or mast! Do you want to rise? 
You can not do it. And if you would descend, there is a bottom- 


6 ‘They cited to him the example of their 


less abyss to meet you.” 
master who, being at all times reserved in his expressions, never 
ventured upon the sea without providing for a safe return; in 
other words, he hid his thoughts under the veil of allegory. 

However, later on the same principle is stated quite frankly: 
“All things of which this world consists, the spirit as well as the 
body, will return to the principle and to the root from which 
they came.? He is the beginning and the end of all the degrees 
of the creation; all these degrees are marked with His seal, and 
He can be designated by unity only. He is one despite the 
innumerable forms that clothe Him.”® 


4 Ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing nothing is made.—Transl. 

5 Zohar, part II, fol. 100b, sect. n’»Bywn (Mishpatim). 

6 Zohar, ibid. 

T oMDI MID IIT Rw Ww) NW NPY wD WIN RY IYI Sp 5d 
(RIOD? «KWH A IYDR—Part II, fol. 218b. 

8 RON IPR NOD TDD PITT TD DIN ID wD PIT «955 RDI) NBD 
SINR ROR UR NP PRO PSPYT 1D ST AYR T ANINN® Ink —Part I, fol. 


21a. 


180 THE KABBALAH 


If God is at once the cause and the substance, or, as Spinoza 
would express himself, the “immanent cause of the universe,” it 
necessarily follows that the latter is the masterpiece of supreme 
perfection, wisdom and goodness. To convey this idea the 
Kabbalists made use of a very original expression which several 
of the modern mystics, Boehm and Saint Martin among them, 
frequently used in their works. They called Nature a “blessing,” 
and they considered as a very significant fact that the letter by 
which Moses began the story of the creation n'wxoq2 (Breshith) ,? 
is also the first letter in the word blessing, ;9593 (Brakah).1° 
Nothing is absolutely bad, nothing is accursed forever, not even 
the archangel of evil or the “venomous beast” yy gyn 
(Havya Besha), as he is sometimes called, is accursed definitely. 
There will come a time when he will recover his name and his 
angelic nature.1 

Besides, here on earth, wisdom is no less visible than goodness, 
since the universe was created by the divine word, and because 
the universe in itself is nothing else but this word. Now, in the 
mystical language of the Zohar it means, as we have already been 
taught, that the articular expression of the divine thought is the 


9 The letter 2 (Beth) of the Hebrew alphabet—Transl. 

10 SAINN M3) ROY NII SOINYR ABAD yo D wR N35 p:3D Part I, 
fol. 205b, sect. 3": (Va-yigash). See also Otiot de-Rabbi Akiba. 

@ Otiot de Rabbi Akiba, also called Midrash Otiot de Rabbi Akiba, 
or Haggadah de Rabbi Akiba, is the title of a Midrash on the names of 
the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, claimed to have come down from the 
great master (Tanna) Akiba ben Joseph, of the second century.—Transl. 

11 The mystic name is 9XDD (Sama-ayl). In the days to come the 
first half n> (Sam), which signifies poison, will be omitted; the second 
portion %*% (Ayl) is the name common to all the angels. The same 
idea is expressed also in another form. Having demonstrated by a 
Kabbalistic process ( #'"HD'2—Gematreeya) that the name of God com- 
prises all the sides of the universe, with the exception of the North 
which is reserved as a place of expiation for the wicked, they add that 
at the end of the days, the north will, like all the other sides, enter 
the ineffable name. Hell will disappear; there will be neither chastise- 
ment nor trials, nor culprits. Life will be an eternal feast, a Sabbath 
without end. Cordovero, Pardes Ribonim, fol. 10b, and in Targum 
Jonathan ben Uziel to Genesis III, 15, it is said to the contrary that 
the serpent alone will remain unrecovered. 


Tee beak ACD BA EcAyH 181 


ensemble of all the individual beings that exist in the bud in 
the eternal forms of supreme wisdom. 

But none of the passages already cited, or those we may cite 
in support of the principle in question, is of greater interest than 
the following: ‘“The Holy One, blessed be He, had already 
created and destroyed several worlds before He decided upon the 
creation of the world we live in; and when that last work was 
about to be accomplished, all the creatures of the universe and 
everything that was to be in the world—in whatever period they 
were to exist—were present before God in their real form before 
they became a part of the universe. In this sense the following 
words of Ecclesiastes are to be taken: ‘Whatever was in times 
past shall be in the future also, and all that is to be has been 
already.’12 13 The entire lower world was made in the likeness of 
the higher world. All that exists in the higher world appears 
like an image in this lower world; yet all this is but One.’ 

From this exalted and grand belief which we meet more or 
less diffused through all the great systems of metaphysics, the 
Kabbalists have drawn an inference which brings them over 
entirely to mysticism. They imagined that everything which 
strikes our senses has a symbolic meaning; that the phenomena 
and the most material form can teach us what passes either in 
the divine thought or in the human intelligence. According to 


12 AD 533 sold? DUN} POY YIND 8 ROSY INT WaptT RQ KP Ty 
ININVNT KROPY YART WR 93 OP INN) Mop NT RD ROW NTI ANWR 
AVDIPID WP IOP NA RA NOsyd pn RS IY KID NIT 992 ~~ part III, 
fol. 61, a, b. 

18 Incorrectly quoted and passed unnoticed by Dr. Jellinek. The 
Hebrew text (Eccl. III, 15) reads:.m7 729 nae awe) NIT 135 AY Or 

Leeser’s translation according to Rashi’s and Ramban’s interpre- 
tation is as follows: “That which hath been hath long since appeared, 
and what is to be has already been. . .” The Zohar also interprets in 
this sense; for after quoting this passage it continues:13"7) [123 Mmnw A 
—What was already has already been. Of interest is the free trans- 
lation of Moses Mendelson; it reads: “As destined as the past has 
been, so destined is the future, as though it had already been.” A 
clear statement of the theory of pre-destination—Transl. 

14 ynmitD YN? wry MD 931 YD ow DMPA Jd. AM OWA wy 
“me «$901 THNe—Zohar, part II, fol. 20a. 


182 (LY Hos oe Khe ACB Be Asa Aw i 


them all that emanates from the mind must manifest itself and 
become visible outside of it.45 From this conception comes also 
the belief in a celestial alphabet and in physiognomics. They 
speak of the celestial alphabet in the following manner: “Through- 
out the entire extent of the heavens whose circumference surrounds 
the world, there are figures and signs by means of which we may 
discover the most profound secrets and mysteries. These figures 
are formed by the constellations and the stars which are observed 
and investigated by the wise.4® He who is obliged to travel in 
the morning shall rise at daybreak and look attentively toward 
the East. He will see something like letters graven on the 
heavens, and placed one above the other. ‘Those brilliant forms 
are the letters with which God created the heaven and the earth; 
they form His mysterious and holy name.’’!? 

Such ideas, if not taken in a very lofty sense, may seem 
unworthy of a place in a serious work, but we would miss the 
only aim we have placed before us, and we would be false to 
historic truth, were we to show the most brilliant and _ best- 
founded thoughts of the system contained in the Zohar, and were 
we to eliminate carefully all that may offend our intellectual 
habits. We have seen more than once that similar reveries were 
caused by the same principle and that such reveries were not 
always the work of the weakest minds. Plato and Pythagoras 
came close to them; and on the other hand, all the great repre- 
sentatives of mysticism, all those who saw in external nature a 
living allegory only, adopted the theory of numbers and ideas, 
each one according to his intellectual capacity. 

That the Kabbalists admitted also physiognomy, the name of 
which was already known in the time of Socrates, is also a 
consequence of their general system of metaphysics, or, if we may 


15 tHN¥) 193 $2 RANT KIO wT AY 5 —Zohar, part II, fol. 
74a; part II, fol. 20a. 
16 Part II, 74a, sect. 11m’) —Vayithro. 
17 yyaDART Pp Ww 7D ID WIN NOD SY ADOPT NRDYST PPS oR 
ND NOINONSY NID IDM I RIMYS 2.957 KDI POND PII 155 M3 
—Part II, fol. 76a. 


THE KABBALAH 18¥ 


make use of modern philosophical language, it was by virtue of 
an a priori judgment. “According to the teachings of the Masters 
of esoteric science, AXDIB NNOINT “ND, physiognomy does not 
consist in outwardly manifested features, but in features mysteri- 
ously traced in the depth of our inner self. The external features 
vary according to the form imprinted on the inner face of the 
spirit. The spirit alone produces all the physiognomies known 
to the sages, and it is through the spirit that the physiognomies 
have a meaning. When souls and spirits come out of Eden (as 
Supreme Wisdom is often called) they all have definite forms 
which are later on reflected in the face.” (Zohar, part II, 
fol. 73b.) 

A large number of detailed observations, some of which are 
still credited generally at the present time, follow these general 
considerations. For instance: a broad, convex forehead is the sign 
of a profound and active mind and of a choice intelligence; a 
broad but flat forehead denotes insanity and stupidity; a flat 
forehead terminating in a point and compressed at the sides, is 
an unfailing indication of a very limited mind, often combined 
with unbounded vanity. (Ib. supr., fol. 73-75a.)18 All human 
faces may be traced, finally, to four primary types, to which they 
either draw near or from which they recede according to the 
rank held by the souls in their intellectual and moral order. 
Those types are the four figures which occupy the mysterious 
chariot of Ezekiel, that is to say the figures of man, of the lion, 
of the ox and of the eagle.!® 

It seems to us that the demonology adopted by the Kabbalists 
is but a reflected personification of the different degrees of life 
and intelligence which they perceived throughout nature.2® The 
belief in demons and in angels had long since taken root in the 


18 The interpretation of the forehead is found really before the 
general considerations, on page 71b.—Jellinek 

19 sy) 3B Jw 2B MOK 13B WOR 3B RDNT RIY—Part II, fol. 73b, ff. 

20 Compare L. Dukes. History of the Neo-Hebrew religious poetry, 
pgs. 107-110.—Jellinek 


184 THE -K Ar BeB AGE AH 


mind of the people, like a jesting mythology, as it were, alongside 
the severe dogma of the divine unity. Why then should they not 
just as well have made use of it to veil their ideas on the relations 
of God to the world, as they made use of the dogma of the 
. creation to teach the contrary, or as they made use of the words 
of the text of the Scriptures to place themselves above the divine 
word and religious authority? 

We have not found any text entirely free from doubt in 
support of ‘this opinion, but here are some reasons which make 
this opinion very probable, at least. First of all in the three 
principal fragments of the Zohar, in the two Idras and in the 
Book of Mystery, there is never any mention made, in any form, 
of this celestial or infernal hierarchy which seems to have been 
only a memento of the Babylonian captivity. Then, when angels 
are spoken of in the other parts of the Zohar, they are represented 
as much inferior beings than man, as forces of unchanging blind 
impulses. We shall offer an example of it in the following words: 
“God vivified every. part of the firmament with a particular spirit; 
immediately all the celestial hosts were formed and found them- 
selves before Him. This is the meaning of what is said (Psalms, 
XXXII, 6): ‘With the breath of His mouth He created all 
their hosts... .’ The holy spirits who are the messengers of 
the Lord, descend from one degree only; but in the souls of 
the just there are two degrees united in one. For that reason the 


souls of the just rise higher, and for that same reason their rank 
is higher.”2? 


22 anew) In INRD Ine ne NMINOY PTT peep Pm 95 
IN PWPIITD TN PSD WD aay INA 199199 NM NPIS —Zohar, part 
III, fol. 68a, b.4 

._4 As the author quotes only the last part of the original text, I 
shall give the first part, and also venture some correction in the trans- 
lation which may give a better understanding of the text. The first 
part reads: NID NIM OP) YDIYNN PSH RIN DID NwWp Away Rnyws 

w DRIY 93 1B ANI) ("> DAN) 3aN35 

My correction refers to the last half of the quotation. The author 
omits the word xo:ys0 after wtp tm1n 53, and the word 19395 after 
‘Ino, also the letter 7 in the word j}nnnw37. He translates the word 


THE KABBALAH 185 


Even the talmudists, despite their adherence to the letter, 
subscribe to the same principle:?* ‘The just,” they say, ‘are 
greater than the angels.’’*% We shall understand even better 
what was meant by the spirits which animate all the celestial 
bodies and all the elements of the earth, if we pay attention to 
the names and the functions attributed to them. First of all we 
must remove the purely poetical personifications, the character 
of which is closely set forth; and of such are all the angels that 
bear the name representing a moral quality or a metaphysical 
abstraction ; as, for instance, the good and the bad desire ( 339 “y° 
—Yotzar Tov, yon "y1—Yotzar ha-Rah) which are always 
represented to us as real personages, the angel of purity 
(Tahariel), the angel of mercy (Rahmiel), the angel of justice 
(Tzadkiel), the angel of deliverance (Pada-el) and the famous 
Raziel, the angel of secrets who watches with a jealous eye over 
the mysteries of the Kabbalistic wisdom.** Moreover, it is a 
principle recognized by all the Kabbalists, and connected with the 
general system of beings, that the angelic hierarchy begins only 
in the third world, the World of Formation, Any odSsy (Olarft 
Yetzirah), the place occupied by the planets and celestial bodies. 

Now, as previously said, the chief of the invisible militia is 
the angel Metatron, so called because his place is immediately 
below the throne of God (s)p4}5—Kursa-yah), and who alone 
constitutes the World of Creation, or the world of pure spirits, 
mga psy (Olam B’ree-oh). His task is to maintain unity, 
harmony, and the movement of the spheres; this is exactly the 
task of that blind and infinite force which, at times, has been 


“ns ® wrongly with “degree,” while the meaning of “ns is “place.” 
So corrected, the translation of this part would read: “All the higher, 
holy spirits, who perform the errands, issue from one place, the souls 
of the just (issue) from two degrees which unite into one, and therefore 
rise higher and their degrees are higher.”—Transl. 

22 Compare Ibn Ezra to Genesis I, 1. Yalkut to Joel, par. 524.— 
Jellinek 

23 nwt *DN5DY Ny bP O°5193—Babyl. Talmud, Sanhedrin, ch. 
XI, and Hulin, ch. VI. 

24 Zohar, part I, fol. 40, 41. Ib., fol. 55a. Ib., fol. 146a. 


186 DHE KK AVR BAC ALE 


substituted for God under the name of ‘‘Nature.” The myriads 
of subordinates under Metatron’s command have been divided 
into ten categories, undoubtedly in honor of the ten Sefiroth. 
These subaltern angels are to the different divisions of nature, 
‘to every sphere and to every element in particular, what their 
chief is to the entire universe. Thus, one presides over the 
movements of the earth, another over the movements of the moon, 
and so on over all other celestial bodies.2°> One is called the angel 
of fire (Nuriel), another is called the angel of light (Uriel), 
a third presides over the distribution of the seasons, a fourth 
over vegetation. In short, all the productions, all the forces and 
all the phenomena of nature are represented in the same manner. 

The purpose of this allegory becomes quite evident when the 
infernal spirits are under consideration. We have already called 
attention to the general name given to all the forces of this order. 
The demons, according to the Kabbalists, are the grossest and 
most imperfect forms, the “shells’’ of existence; in short, every- 
thing that denotes absence of life, of intelligence and of order. 
Like the angels, they form ten Sefiroth, ten degrees where 
darkness and impurity thicken more and more, as in the circles 
of the Florentine poet. 7 27 

The first, or rather the first two degrees, are nothing else 
but the state in which Genesis represents to us the earth before 
the work of the six days; that is to say, absence of all visible form 
and of all organization.28 The third is the seat of darkness, 
the same darkness which in the beginning covered the face 


25 They even go so far as to give them the names of the heavenly 
bodies themselves. One is called Venus (33—-Nogah), another, 
Mars (o'x2—Mo-ahdim), another is called the substance of the 
heavens ( d°pwn oxy—Etzem ha-shomayim).—Zohar, part I, fol. 42ff. 

26 Tikunim, Tikun 15, fol. 36. 

27 Referring to the great Italian poet Dante and his immortal 
“Inferno.”’—Transl. 

28 sna) nn (Tohu Ubohu) which the Septuagint translates by the 
two words G0Qat0S xal GxataoxetuoTos. 


ehh eek Ag bene AR CATH 187 


of the abyss.29 Then follow what are called the seven 
tabernacles, (ni$5°n yaw—Shebah Hekoles), or so-called hell, 
which shows us in a systematic outline all the disorders of the 
moral world and all the torments consequent to them. ‘There 
We see every passion of the human heart, every vice and every 
weakness personified in a demon who becomes the tormentor of 
those who have been led astray by these faults. Here—lust and 
seduction (mjnp) there—anger and violence (ANN) AN), further 
on gross impurity, the demon of solitary debauches, elsewhere— 
crime (f21n), envy (N28) idolatry and pride. 

The seven infernal tabernacles are divided and subdivided ad 
infinitum; for every kind of perversity there is something like a 
special kingdom and thus the abyss unfolds itself gradually in 
all its depth and immensity.2° The supreme chief of that world 
of darkness who bears the Scriptural name of “Satan,” is called 
in the Kabbalah “Samael” (5xpp), that is to say the angel of 
poison or of death; and the Zohar states positively that the angel 
of death, evil desire, satan and the serpent which seduced our 
first mother, are one and the same thing.! Samael is also given 
a wife who is the personification of vice and sensuality, for she 
calls herself the chief prostitute or the mistress of debauches 
pit nws.2* But ordinarily they are united into one single 
symbol called simply the beast (yn). 

If we wish to reduce this demonology and angelology to the 
simplest and most general form, we find that the Kabbalists 
recognized in each object of nature, and consequently in all nature, 
two very distinct elements; one, an inner incorruptible which 
reveals itself to the intelligence exclusively, and which is the 


29° NBSP NT — INN ANN PINAY NT SY NT Od¥2 95599 PyBYSP Non 
JARMSN MBP WIN .kIySN NBSP NT NII .AkoOTP—Ib. supr. 

80 For all the details see Zohar, part II, fol. 255-259, sect.  71Pb 
and the commentary or rather the Hebrew translation of that passage 
in Pardes Rimonim. n\93.nn “yy 

81) an 89D) THY NT NO ISD NT YI WY? &T WhIN} —Part I, fol. 
35b. 

32 It is supposed that the wife of Samael is Lilith (a power of the 
night), which is often spoken of in the Talmud. 


188 THE KABBALAH 


spirit, the life or the form. The other, a purely external and 
material element that has been made the symbol of forfeiture, of 
curse and of death. They may have said, as a modern philosopher, 
and a descendant of their race said: Omnia, quamvis diversis 
gradibus, animata tamen sunt. (All, no matter how different a 
grade, is still animated.—Spinoza, Ethics.) 


CHAPTER V 


CONTINUATION OF THE ANALYSIS 
OF THE ZOHAR 


VIEW OF THE KABBALISTS ON THE HUMAN SOUL 


It is mainly because of the high rank given to man by the 
Kabbalists, that the latter recommend themselves to our interest, 
and the study of their system becomes of great importance to 
the history of philosophy as well as to that of religion. ‘‘For dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” is said in Genesis 
(III, 19); and this curse is followed neither by any definite! 
promise of a better future, nor by any mention of the soul 
which is to return to God when the body mingles with the earth. 
According to the author of the Pentateuch, the model of wisdom 
in Israel, the author of Ecclesiastes, has bequeathed the following 
strange comparison to posterity:? “For that which befalleth the 
sons of man, befalleth the beasts; even the same thing befalleth 
them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other.” (Ecl. II, 19.) 

The Talmud expresses itself at times very poetically on the 
compensation that awaits the just. It represents them sitting in 
the celestial Eden with crowned heads and enjoying the divine 


1 I have emphasized this word because it must be admitted that the 
doctrine of immortality is not indicated anywhere in the Pentateuch 
with any definite words. Besides, immortality belongs to the charac- 
teristic essence of the other side—the religion.—Jellinek. 

2 But Ecclesiastes is a product of the semi-liberal and not of the 
Jewish spirit.—Jellinek 


189 


190 (Ee Eee KAS BRACE ASE 


glory.2 But it endeavors rather to humble than enoble human 
nature in general. ‘‘Whence come you? From a fetid drop. 
Whither go you? ‘To a place of dust, of defilement and of 
worms. And before whom are you some day to vindicate yourself 
and give account of your actions? Before the King of all Kings, 
before the Holy One Whose name be praised!’’* Such are the 
words we read in a collection of sayings attributed to the oldest 
and most honored leaders of the Talmudical school.® 

In quite a different language the Zohar tells us of our origin, 
of our future destiny and of our relations to the Divine Being. 
“Man,” it says, “is both the summary and the highest expression 
of creation; for this reason he was not created until the sixth 
day. As soon as man appeared, everything was completed, the 
higher world as well as the lower world; for all is summed up 
in man, he unites all form.’® But he is not only the image of 
the world, of the universality of beings including the absolute; 
he is also, and above all, the image of God as considered in the 
totality of these infinite attributes. Man is the divine presence 
on earth, ANNN NNDwW (Sekinta Tahtoah); it is the Celestial 
Adam who, departing from the highest primitive darkness, created 
the Terrestrial Adam.? 

Here follows at first a representation of man under the first 
of these two aspects, that is—man as the Microcosm. ‘Do not 


3 PIWA YTD Pha) INywRID IMM? 131. Pp sIs—Babyl. Talmud, 
Berahot, 17a. 
4 YO) yoni m1 IBY Dips Win ANN 185) ANID ABOD AD TNdD 
su D39Nn 939_ Tp 2B? NawM 7 In? TWny any > —Pirke Aboth, ch. 
ets 
5 Again a bolstered-up judgment on the Talmud! ‘The passage 
quoted here by the author is not from the Talmud, but was said by an 
individual, Akabya ben Mahalalel. In what connection did he say it? 
“Three things you shall hold before you, and you will not be tempted 
to sin: Whence come you? etc.;” a thought that is bound to be 
expressed by any one who has as yet not overcome the religious point 
of view, whether Jew or Gentile.—Jellinek 
6 DIND 5759nk NSD) NNN NSYST AD 9D ND IPNNN OW KRW 11°93 
IIT RNY 11*8—Zohar, part III, fol. 48a. 
WNNS DIX RID ANOW ANSY WIND WO RNID RINT INI RYT OTK 
—Part II. fol. 70b. 


THER AB BAL A H 191 


think that man is but flesh, skin, bones and veins; far from it! 
That which really constitutes man, is his soul; and the things 
we call skin, flesh, bones and veins are for us but a garment, a 
cloak, but they do not constitute man. When man departs (this 
earth), he divests himself of all the cloaks that cover him. Yet, 
the different parts of the body conform to the secrets of the 
supreme wisdom. ‘The skin represents the firmament which 
extends everywhere and which covers everything, like a cloak. 
The flesh reminds us of the evil side of the universe (that is, as 
we have said above, the purely external and sensual element). 
The bones and the veins represent the celestial chariot, the forces 
that exist within 135 3p.p7 195.n, the servants of God. However, 
all this is but a cloak; for the deep mystery of Celestial Man is 
within. All is as mysterious below as it is above. ‘Therefore 
it is written: And God created Man in His image. ‘The 
mystery of terrestrial man is according to the mystery of the 
Celestial Adam. Yet, as we see in the all-covering firmament 
_ stars and planets which form different figures that contain hidden 
things and profound mysteries, so there are on the skin that 
covers our body certain figures and lines which are the planets 
and stars of our body. All these signs have a hidden meaning 
and attract the attention of the wise who can read the face of 
man.” (Zohar, Part II, 76a.) Man makes even the most. 
ferocious animal tremble by the sole power of his external form 
and by the intelligence and grandeur that reflects in his features.8 
The angel sent to Daniel to protect him from the rage of the 
lions, is, according to the Zohar, nothing but the very face of the 
prophet, or the power exerted by the look of a pure man. It is 
added, though, that this power vanishes as soon as the person 
sinks through sin and through neglect of his duties.2 We shall 





8 sd wd TDT ANSY NMIPITD PSDNoM) RW PHY KOT II WIN 79 
pyoen pyr wont 1153—Part I, fol. 191a, Sect. .2) 
HS HSMN AwIP ODT ORT NMUINT TIND SIN ND WII TDI 
ile supr. 


192 THES RACE BA ATH 


not linger upon this point which we have noted, and which belongs 
entirely to the theory of nature. 

When we consider the human being, per se, that is to say, 
from the point of view of the soul, and compared to God before 
He became visible in the world, it reminds us entirely, by its 
unity, by its substantial identity and by its three-fold nature, of 
the supreme trinity. For the human being consists of the following 
elements: (1) of a spirit, mows (N’shamah), which 
represents the highest degree of his existence; (2) of a soul my 
(Roo-ah), which is the seat of good and evil, of the good and 
evil desires, in short, of all the moral attributes; (3) of a coarser 
spirit, wp) (Nefesh), which is in immediate relation with the 
body and the direct cause of what the text calls the “lower 
movements,” that is, the actions and instincts of the animal life. 

To understand how these three principles, or rather these three 
degrees of human existence united in one being, despite the 
distance that separates them, we give here again the comparison 
which we have made use of on the subject of the divine attributes, 
and the germ of which is to be found in the Book of Formation. 
There are a great many passages which bear witness to these 
three souls; but we prefer to choose the following because of its 
lucidity: ‘“‘In these three, the spirit, the soul and the life of the 
senses, we find a true picture of what is going on above; for all 
these three make up but one being, where all is joined in unity. 
The life of the senses has no light of its own; for this reason it 
is closely connected to the body which it supplies with the neces- 
sary enjoyments as well as food. We may apply here the following 
words of the sage: ‘She gives provision to her household, and 
a task to her maidens.’ (Prov. XXI, 15.) ‘The house is the 
body that is nourished, and the maidens are the members of the 
body who obey. Above the life of the senses is the soul, which 
subdues it, rules it and supplies it with as much light as it needs. 
The animal principle is therefore the seat of the soul. Finally, 
above the soul is the spirit, by which it is ruled in turn, and 


et He hae Kk AUB? Bi Ac UAC 193 


which illumines it with the light of life. The soul is illumined 
by this light, and is entirely dependent upon the spirit. After 
death, the soul finds no rest, and the gates of Eden are closed 
to her until the spirit had risen to its source, to the Ancient of 
the Ancients, to replenish everlastingly from Him; for the spirit 
always ascends to its source.’’!° 

Each of these three souls, as is easily foreseen, has its source 
in a different degree of the divine existence. “The supreme 
wisdom, also called the “Celestial Eden,” is the only source of 
the spirit. The soul, according to all the commentators on the 
Zohar, springs from the attribute which unites in itself ‘“Judg- 
ment’ and “Mercy,” that is to say, from “Beauty.” And lastly, 
the animal principle, which never rises above this world, has no 
other basis but the attributes of strength contained in the 
“Kingdom.” 

Besides these three elements the Zohar recognizes also another 
element of quite an extraordinary nature the origin of which will 
reveal itself in the course of this work. It is the external form of 
man conceived as a separate existence preceding the body, in 
short, the idea of the body, but with the individual traits which 
distinguish every one of us. ‘This idea descends from heaven, 
and becomes visible at the moment of conception. “At the moment 
of earthly union,™ the Holy One, praised be His name, sends down 
a human-like form which bears the imprint of the divine seal. 
This form is present at the act of which we spoke, and if we were 
permitted to see what goes on at the time, we would notice above 
its head an image resembling a human face, and this image is 
the model according to which we are procreated. Procreation can 
not take place until this form has been sent by the Lord, until 
it descends and hovers over our head, for it is written: ‘And 
God created man in His image.’ It is this image which receives 


10 Part II, fol. 142a, Sect. mein (T’roomah). 

11 [ wish to note here that “union” may be taken in the allegorical 
sense, and refer to the “king” and “queen,” (see page 168); but may 
also bé taken in the sense of concubitus.—Jellinek 


194 TA YK AB BA Ao 


us first when we come into this world; it develops with us while 
we grow, and accompanies us when we leave the earth. Its origin 
is in heaven (x5°y5p YAN DOSY INT). When the souls are about 
to leave their celestial abode, each soul appears before the Supreme 
King clothed in a sublime form wherein the traits are engraved 
that are to mark it in this world. “The image then emanates 
from this sublime form; it is the third from the soul, precedes 
us to earth and awaits our arrival from the moment of the con- 
ception; it is always present at the conjugal union.”!* The modern 
Kabbalists call this image the “individual principle” (> >n 
—Y’hidoh). 

Some, finally, have introduced into the Kabbalistic psychology 
a fifth principle, called the “vital spirit” ( 3), my — Roo-ah 
He-yuni), or simply pn (He-yoh). The seat of this principle is 
in the heart, and it presides over the combination and the organiza- 
tion of the material elements. It is just as different from the 
principle of animal life (Nefesh) and the life of the senses, as 
the “vegetative” and “nutritive soul” (+6 dpextixdv ) differs 
from the “sensitive soul” (1d aiodytixdv ) in the philosophy of 
Aristotle and of the scholastics. ‘This opinion is based upon an 
allegorical passage in the Zohar, where it is said that every night 
during our sleep our soul ascends to heaven to render account 
there of the day’s work, and that during that time the body 
is animated only by a breath of life which has its seat in the 
heart.? 

But, to tell the truth, these last two elements do not count 
in our spiritual existence, which is entirely included in the intimate 
union of the soul and the spirit. ‘The temporary union of these 
two higher principles with the sense principle, that is to say, 
life itself which chains them to earth, is not considered a 
misfortune. Unlike Origenes and the gnostic schools. life is not 
looked upon as a downfall or as an exile, but as a means for 


Zohar, part III, fol. 104a, b, Sect. ‘198 (Emor). 
NIT RNVAT IDI 1091 In 2 NP AINA WD ANNE ND 
ees part I Sect. 19 75 (Lech L’chah). 


THE KABBALAH 195 


education and as a beneficial trial. According to the Kabbalists, 
it is necessary for the soul, an inherent necessity of its finite 
nature, to play a part in the universe, to contemplate the spectacle 
offered by creation, in order to attain self-consciousness and 
consciousness of its origin; and to return, but without absolutely 
uniting, to that inexhaustible source of light and life which is 
called the Divine Thought. 

Moreover, the spirit cannot descend without raising at the 
same time the two lower principles, yes, even matter which is 
placed still lower. Human life, when completed, is therefore a 
kind of reconciliation between the two extreme expressions of 
existence considered in its entirety; between the ideal and the real, 
between form and matter, or, as expressed in the original, 
between the king and the queen. Here we have these two 
deductions recognizably expressed in a more poetical form: “The 
souls of the just are above all the high powers and high servants. 
And were you to ask why they descend to this world from such 
a lofty position, and why they wander from their source, I shall 
answer by the following example: To a king was born a son 
who was sent to the country to be fed and raised until he should 
be sufficiently grown and instructed in the habits of his father’s 
palace. When the father was informed that the education of 
his son was completed, what does he do in his love for him? 
He sends for the queen, his son’s mother, to celebrate his return; 
he takes him into his palace and rejoices with him all day. 

“The Holy One (blessed be His name!) also has a son from 
the queen; this son is the higher and holy soul. He sends him 
to the country, i.e., into this world, in order to grow up and 
be initiated in the usages observed in the royal palace. When 
the king is informed that His son has reached mature age and 
that the time has come to take him into His palace, what does He 
do for the love of him? In honor of His son, he invites the queen, 
and takes His son into His palace. The soul really never leaves 
the earth except in company with the queen who is to conduct 


196 THE KABBALAH 


it into the palace of the king where it is to live forever. And 
yet the inhabitants of the country are accustomed to weep when 
the King’s son separates from them. 

“But, if there be a clear-sighted man among them, he tells 
them: Why do you cry? Is he not the son of the king? Is he 
not right in leaving you that he may go to live in the palace of 
his father? Thus did Moses, who knew the truth, say to the 
weeping inhabitants of the country (i.e., the people). You are 
the sons of Jehovah, your God, you shall not cut yourself for 
the dead. If all the just knew this, they would welcome the 
day they are to quit this world. And is it not the height of 
glory when the queen (the Shekinah or the Divine Presence) 
descends among them, when they are admitted to the palace of 
the king, and when they enjoy His delight forever ?’® 

In these relations between God, nature and the human soul 
we find again the same form of trinity which we met so often 
before, and which the Kabbalists seem to have given a logical 
importance of greater extent than the exclusive circle of religious 
ideas is able to hold. 

But human nature is the image of God not alone from this 
point of view; in all degrees of its existence it includes also the 
two generative principles, the trinity of which, formed by means 
of a middle term proceeding from their union, is but the result 
and most complete expression. ‘The Celestial Adam being the 
result of a male and a female principle, it was necessary that 
the same apply also to the terrestrial man; and this distinction 
applies not only to the body, but also, and above all, to the soul 
when considered in its purest element. 

“Every form,” says the Zohar, “in which the male and female 
principle is not found, is not a higher or complete form. The 
Holy One, blessed be He, does not establish His abode where 
these two principles are not perfectly united ; the blessing descends 


14 Deuter. XIV, 1. 
15 Zohar, part I, fol. 245a, Sect. nm. This entire passage has 
been translated into Latin by Joseph Voysin. 


esti Meee orn Dee eee] oe ed 197 


only where this union exists, as the following words teach us: 
‘He blessed them and called their name (Adam) on the day when 
they were created, (Genesis V, 2); for the name Adam (Man) 
can be given only to a man and a woman who are united into 
one being.’”’1¢ 

Just as the soul was in the. beginning entirely within the 
supreme intelligence, so were the two halves of the human being, 
each one of which, however, comprises all the elements of our 
spiritual nature, united before they came into this world, whither 
they were sent to learn self-recognition and to unite themselves 
anew in the bosom of God. This thought is nowhere expressed 
as clearly as in the following fragment: “Every soul and every 
spirit, before coming into this world, is composed of a male and 
a female united into one being. In descending to earth, these 
two halves separate and go to animate different bodies. At the 
time of marriage, the Holy One, blessed be He, Who knows all 
the souls and all the spirits, unites them as before, and they 
become again one single body and one single soul. . . . But this 
union conforms to the acts of man and to the ways which he 
travelled. If he is pure and acts godly, he will enjoy a union 
which resembles completely the one that preceded his birth.’ 
The author of these lines may have heard of the androgyne of 
Plato; for the name of this imaginary being is well known in 
the ancient traditions of the Hebrews.18 But how far inferior 
to the Kabbalists did the Greek philosopher remain on this point! 
We may be permitted to remark that the question under 


160 NPTD NNSY NPT WN IND NAP TAI WD MONK NT NIPWI 95 
NWI SIP WAT NIN YIPN NF DIN PR oN —Part 1, fol. 55b, Sect. 
mwsi13 (Breshith). 

17 xnywo) SIND PANN NIP Wr 15999 wD nowy WMI IR 93 
HAST NIT TPyY NOD TD NWI 1392 1nd MMe NT 1 RT Peano nn 
sn ypayns manny IW KM IPD 5 WN Pnowsr PMT NIK ywsI n’ap 
“49, Rnow) In xb—Part I, fol. 91b. 

18 Under the name Androgynos (0339210738), from the Greek 
dvdo6yuvoc, referring to man as well as to animal. The commentator 
Yitzhaki makes even use of this expression in a grammatical connection 
for a form which is generis masculi and feminini.—Jellinek 


198 hie eran be br Awe ere 


consideration here, and even the principle by which it is solved 
are not unworthy of a great metaphysical system. For if man 
and woman are two equal beings by their spiritual nature and 
by the absolute laws of morality, they are far from being alike 
in the natural direction of their faculties, and we have reason 
to agree with the Zohar that sexual distinction exists for the 
body as well as for the soul. 

The belief just expounded is inseparable from the dogma of 
pre-existence, and the latter, already included in the theory of 
ideas, is still closer connected to the one which mingles existence 
and thought. Side by side with the principle from which it 
sprang, this dogma is*also acknowledged with all possible per- 
spicuity. We need but continue the modest role of translator. 
“When the Holy One, praised be He, was about to create the 
world, the universe was already present in His thought. He then 
formed also the souls which were eventually to belong to man; 
these souls presented themselves to Him in exactly the same form 
which they were to take later in the human body. God examined 
them one by one, and found several which were to corrupt their 
ways (morals) in this world. When the time came each of the 
souls was summoned before God, Who said: Go to that part 
of the earth and animate such and such a body. The soul replied: 
O, Master of the universe, I am happy in this world and do 
not want to leave it for another where I shall be subjected and 
exposed to all kinds of contamination. The Holy One, blessed 
be He, then said: From the day you were created you had no 
other destination but the world to which I send you. Seeing that it 
must obey, the soul sorrowfully took the earthly path and 
descended among us.’’!9 

Along with this idea we find the doctrine of reminiscence 
expressed in a very simple manner in the following passage: “Just 

19 yynpw2 92 8) ADP AMID PSD Nosy 909 A“opA oysT IDI 


13) NWI 9522 3MHs prot 199NT — Part II, fol. 96b, Sect. orpawn 
(Mishpatim). 


reba ke Ae AC AG TT 199 


as all things of this world were present in their proper form in 
the thought of God before the creation, so were all human souls, 
before coming into this world, in the presence of God in heaven 
in the form which they have here below; and all that they learn 
here, they already knew before they came here.’’?° It is perhaps 
regrettable that such an important principle has not been developed 
further, and that it does not take up more space in the totality of 
the system. But we are forced to admit that it is expressed in 
quite a categorical manner. 

We must take care, however, not to confound this doctrine 
of pre-existence with the doctrine of moral predestination. Human 
liberty is not entirely impossible with the latter; with the first, 
human liberty is a mystery which neither Pagan dualism and the 
Biblical dogma of creation, nor the belief in the absolute unity 
are able to reveal. This mystery is formally acknowledged by 
thesZohar: “If the Lord,” said Simeon ben Yohai to his disciples, 
“tf the Holy One, blessed be He, had not put into us the good 
and the evil desire which the Scriptures call ‘light’ and ‘darkness,’ 
there would be neither merit nor guilt for the created man (man 
proper).” ‘“Then, why is it so?”, demanded the disciples. ‘‘Were 
it not better if there were neither reward nor punishment?” “No!” 
answered the master, “‘it is well that man is created as he is, and 
all that the Holy One, praised be He, created, was necessary. 
The law was made for the sake of man; but the law is a cloak 
for the Shekinah. Without man and without the law, the divine 
presence (Shekinah) would be like a pauper who has no cloak 
to cover himself with.’’2? 

In other words, the moral nature of man, the idea of good 
and evil, which can not be conceived without liberty, is one of 
the forms under which we are forced to picture the absolute 


20° NDSYS TN) NIT Ty NSD NOS NN PST Ny 92) —Part III, 
fol. 61b, Sect. .nio ‘ins (Ahre Moth). 

21) 8d wn) BR PINT RvvD) NAD NI Nap NDT DD TT ORD ON 
RMVRTI P93 1D AIDS 1S MA PIN wm VANvIIT OI) AND Mor A 
“33) myenans 32933—Part I, fol. 93a, b. 


200 SHOR pe Kerks sie cls eek Sid 


being. ‘True, we have been told previously that God knew the 
souls, before their coming to this world, which were to desert 
Him later on; but freedom does not suffer thereby. On the 
contrary, it only commences then, and even the spirits which have 
been liberated from the bondage of matter can, according to the 
following words of the Zohar, abuse liberty. ‘All those who do 
evil in this world have begun already in heaven their estrangement 
from the Holy One, praised be He; they threw themselves into 
the entrance of the abyss and anticipated the time of their coming 
to earth. Thus were the souls before they came among us.’’?? 

It is precisely for the purpose of reconciling liberty with the 
destination of the soul, and of giving man the means of expiating 
his faults without banishing him forever from the bosom of God, 
that the Kabbalists adopted and ennobled the Pythagorean dogma 
of metempsychosis. Like all individual beings, it is necessary 
that the souls return also to the absolute substance from which 
they departed. But to attain that purpose they must develop 
all perfections, the indestructible germ of which is hidden in 
them, and through many trials they must attain self-consciousness 
and consciousness of their origin. If they did not fulfil these 
conditions in a previous life, they begin a second, and after this 
a third life, passing always into new conditions where the 
acquisition of the lacking virtues depends entirely upon them- 
selves. We may stop this exile whenever we wish, but nothing 
prevents us from continuing it forever. 

“All souls,” says the text, ‘‘are subject to the trials of 
transmigration, 8933932 1Sxy, and man does not know the ways 
of the Holy One, blessed be He. He does not know that he is 
called to judgment entering this world as well as after leaving 
it. He does not know the many transformations and the many 
secret trials he has to pass through; the number of souls and 


22 F/2P PDPH PPMIND TON IDNR NOY NAD PRT POONwy KOT rR 55 
RD TY YT FD .ARSYS pny RNY! PPNT RID RPMNT Nap. prsay 
awooy? tin’ —Part III, fol. 61b. Sect. mio ‘nx (Ahre Moth), 


ierigl a Ky A BenACE JA tt 201 


spirits which enter this world and do not return to the palace 
of the Heavenly King. Man does not know that the souls 
undergo revolutions similar to those of a stone thrown from a 
sling. The time has finally come when these secrets must be 
divulged.”’?3 

To these words, so fully in accord with the metaphysics of 
the Zohar, details are added which reveal at times the most poetic 
imagination which offers no interest for the history of philosophy 
and adds nothing to the system we are endeavoring to understand, 
although not unworthy of Dante’s genius and of being incorporated 
in his immortal work. We only wish to note that, according to 
St. Jerome, the transmigration of the soul was taught for a long 
time among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional 
doctrine which was to be divulged to a small number of the elect 
only: abscondite quasi in foveis viperarum versari, et quasi 
haereditario malo sercere in paucis.24 Origen considered the 
doctrine as the only possible explanation of such Biblical accounts 
as the prenatal scuffie between Esau and Jacob, of Jeremiah’s 
appointment while still in his mother’s womb, and a host of 
others which would accuse the heavens of iniquity were they not 
justified by the good or evil actions of a pre-existing life. To 
remove all doubt as to the origin and the true character of this 
belief, the Alexandrian priest takes care to add that it is not the 
metempsychosis of Plato which is at issue here, but quite a 
different and much loftier theory.75 

To help us regain heaven, modern Kabbalists have conceived 
another remedy, besides so-called metemphsychosis, which is offered 
to our weakness by divine grace. ‘They are of the opinion that 
since the souls lack the power to fulfil separately all the precepts 
of the law God unites them into one life, so that, like the blind 


2300 YIPT MIN Nw 19D YI NSY NDAD PSRY pnw) S9—Part 11 
fol. 99b, Sect. o'psvo (Mishpatim). 

24 Hieronymus, Epistol. ad Demetriadem. See also Hutt. Origeniana. 

25 TIeot cox@v liv. I, ch. VIL Ov xatd TAdtwvoc petevoud- 
TWOW, GAAG xat’? GAAnv wyndotégav Bewetav,—Adv. Celsum, liv. III. 


, 


202 TH Fe ARS BSA Amr. 


and the lame, they may complete each other. Sometimes it is 
only one soul which is in need of additional virtue; it therefore 
looks for it in another, better favored and stronger soul. The 
latter then becomes like a mother to the first one, carrying it in its 
bosom and nourishing it from its own substance, like a woman 
nourishing the fruit of her womb. Whence the name “gestation,” 
or “impregnation” ( 3)3:y—Ibur), the philosophical meaning of 
which, if there be one, is hard to guess.2® But we shall lay aside 
these vagaries or unimportant allegories, if you please, and adhere 
to the text of the Zohar. 

We know that the return of the soul to the bosom of God is 
the end of, as well as the compensation for, all the ordeals of 
which we have spoken. However, the authors of the Zohar did 
not stop there. The union which causes such inexpressible joy 
to the creator as well as to the created is to them a natural fact, 
the principle of which rests in the very constitution of the soul; 
in short, they endeavored to explain that doctrine by a psycho- 
logical system which we find, without exception, at the bottom 
of all the theories fathered by mysticism. Having separated from 
human nature the blind force which presides over animal life, 
which never leaves the earth,27 and consequently plays no part 
in the destinies of the soul, the Zohar distinguishes also two kinds 
of sentiments and two kinds of cognitions. ‘“Awe’’28 and “love” 
make up the first two; “direct light’ and “reflected light,” or 


26 This form of transmigration occupied in particular the mind of 
Isaac Luria, as attested by his devoted pupil Ha-Yim Vital, in his 
“Aytz Ha- Yim,” Treatise on Metempsychosis (0153353 5D), ch. L. Moses 
Cordovero, more reserved and adhering closer to the ‘Zohar, speaks 
very little of it. 

7 Noy YNTD nd35anD1 NIBP 12 NNDNwN wEI—Zohar, part I, fol. 83b, 
sect. 73 93; part IT, fol. 141b, sect. mos5n. 

28 J am taking here the word “awe” not in the destructive sense 
of “dread” or “fear,” but in the constructive sense of a “feeling inspired 
by something sublime, not necessarily partaking of the nature of fear 
or dread” (Century Dictionary). The Hebrew word f8>»—Yerah, 
comes from the root —Yoreh, which means “to revere,” “to venerate.” 
I therefore do not agree with Dr. Jellinek’s translation of the author’s 
“crainte’ with “Furcht” (fear, dread). Such rendition seems to me 
against the spirit of the Zohar; and I believe my opinion is supported 


yale KA BOB AsteAGH 203 


the “inner face’ (}sOx3B }}DIN) and the “outer face” 
(}9INN Tp3IN) are the expressions ordinarily used to designate 
the two last ones. 

“The inner face,” says the text, “receives its light from the 
supreme light (sy;w—Sargah), which shines forever and the 
secret of which can never be divulged. It is an inner face because 
it comes from a hidden source; but it is also a superior face 
because it comes from on high. The outer face is but the reflec- 
tion of that light which emanates directly from above.”22 When 
God told Moses that he might see only His back and not His 
front, He alluded to these two kinds of cognition®® which are 
represented in the early paradise by the tree of life and the tree 


by the following from the Zohar (Part I, fol. 88b): ‘There are three 
sides (aspects) to awe. In two of these the essence of awe is not found 
and only one contains the essence of awe. ‘There are some, who fear 
God, that their children may live and not die; or because he fears 
bodily or financial punishment, and because of this he fears Him 
constantly. Such awe, which is (but) fear for God, does not equal 
to the essence (of awe). ‘There are some who fear God because they 
fear the punishment of the world to come and of hell. These two 
(modes of awe) are neither the essence nor the source of awe. Awe 
that makes up the essence (real awe) is the (kind of) awe that one 
should have for his master because he is the teacher and manager, the 
essence and basis of all the worlds.” 

“n) MmINY NPID NIDY 3173 Nm wp PAN PAS ANd WBNS OAR 
SSAT US PNW NP UID NYT 92 AYapH BNI ws AD MR KV KV 
WORT AND MINVR VIN Wd HT RF PY JPINDTI INS MDW KWsiyI9 
NUIT RWIYO Dnt 92 A“aP I DNnIT wd WD NNR NWWYS Nw RS "apo 
SPOUT NVWWI PN FART RY IND PON PIN INAT RY NOY 
RYIWWY NWY O09) 3D MRT 192 Manos 3”3 ONIF AWWY PNT AYRD 
wO2Y 923—Transl. 

29 Part II, fol. 203b. This dual cognition is very often called the 
“luminous mirror” (870) &5ppox—Aspaklaryeh N’haroh), and the 
“non-luminous mirror” (372 857 879BPON—Aspaklaryah d’lo N’haroh). 
They are at times also met with under these names in the Talmud. 

30 It is worthy of note that the Talmud (Yebamoth, fol. 49a), when 
speaking of Moses, uses also the expressions “luminous mirror” and 
“non-luminous mirror” MNO AIRY NOSPEDN, DIINO RIPEN; yet, 
contrary to the Zohar, the Talmud says of Moses that he saw the Deity 
in the luminous mirror Gmriken NMSPBDR2). Noteworthy is also the 
custom with the orthodox Jews to look at the fingernails and fingertips 
when blessing the candle at the end of Sabbath (naw ‘8¥1D) a custom 
based upon the passage of the Zohar quoted by the author. Compare 
Orah Hay-im, sect. 298, par. 1, the note of R. Moses Isserles.—Jellinek 


204 TU HE K ABB As ae 


of knowledge of good and evil. It is, in short, what we would 
call nowadays “Intuition” and “Reflection.” 

Love and awe, considered from the religious standpoint, are 
defined in a very remarkable manner in the following passage: 
“Through Awe we come to Love. One who obeys God out of 
love, has undoubtedly attained the highest degree, and because 
of his sanctity, belongs already to the future life. Do not think, 
though, that service to God through awe is no service at all. 
Such service has also its merits, although the union between the 
soul and God is not so lofty. There is only one degree more 
elevated than that of awe, and that is love. Love contains the 
mystery of the unity of God. It is love that links the higher 
and lower degrees to one another; it is love that lifts everything 
to that degree where all must become one. This is also the secret 
of the words: Hear O Israel, the Eternal our God is One 
God.’’? 

We understand offhand that the spirit, when it has reached 
the highest degree of perfection, knows neither reflection nor awe. 
Its blissful existence, which is all intuition and love, has lost its 
individual character; without interest, without activity and 
without returning to itself, it can not separate itself from the 
divine existence. In the following passage that kind of existence 
is represented from the viewpoint of intelligence: ‘Come and 
see: when the souls have arrived at the place which is called the 
“treasure of life,” they enjoy that brilliant light, , san3q x Space 
whose source is in the highest heaven, and the splendor of the 
light is so great that the souls would not be able to bear it were 
they not clothed with a cloak of light. It is only because of this 
cloak that they can look into that dazzling hearth which illumines 
the seat of life. Moses himself could approach to look at it 
only after discarding his earthly cloak.’’32 


31 ANSY INND PIINN TAN’ 1D SBI INO ..ART Ino5 New AIAN 

TANT NOPYT ALIA PrinNy Xowy Part II, fol. 216a, sect. snp) (Wa-yakhol). 

NMVOPEODRI WTI PHN ton YT KIWI INNS pnpws PID ID A“n 
S1131—Part I, fol. 66a, sect. m3 (Noah). 


‘HWE? KAD BATA 205 


If we wish to know how the soul unites with God through 
love, we must listen to the words ‘of an old man who has been 
entrusted by the Zohar with the most important part after Simeon 
ben Yohai. “In one of the most mysterious and most exalted 
parts of heaven there is a palace of love (72nX 95979 —Hekel 
Ah-vah). The most profound mysteries are there; there are all 
souls well-beloved by the Celestial King, the Holy One, praised 
be He, together with the holy spirits with whom He unites by 
kisses of love (\o°nT7 pw] —N’shikin D’hreemoo).”3? It is by 
virtue of this idea that the death of the righteous is called the 
“kiss of God.’%4 “This kiss,’ says distinctly the text, ‘‘is the 
union of the soul with the substance from which it springs.’’?5 

The same principle will explain to us why all the interpreters 
of mysticism venerate so highly the tender, but often profane, 
expressions met withgin the Song of Songs. “My beloved one 
belongs to me, and I belong to my beloved one,” said Simeon ben 
Yohai before dying,®® and it is especially noteworthy that this 
quotation closes also Gerson’s treatise on mystic theology.?7 Not- 
withstanding the surprise that may be caused by placing the justly 
celebrated name just mentioned and the great name of Fenelon 
alongside the names which figure in the Zohar, we shall have no 
trouble to show that it is impossible to find in the ‘‘Considerations 
on Mystic Theology” and in the ‘Explanations of the Maxims 
of the Saints,’ anything but this theory of love and contemplation, 
of which we have endeavored to show the most salient features. 


83 PINs 95°97 WPT NIM NPI NR RVD NPT NEN NUD 332 
—Part II, 97a, sect. O'DByn (Mishpatim). 

34 This picture, although not the idea, is represented by the Talmud, 
which says that Moses died by a kiss from God.—Jellinek 

35 Spa wet XnIpIT NNT AP wm xM1—Part I, fol. 168, 
sect. m9w) (Va-yishlah). 

86 Part II, Idra Rabba, ad finem.* 

* This reference must be incorrect, as the Idra Rabba is to be 
found in Part III, Section sw3, where the quoted passage is looked for 
in vain, and it is the Idra Zutah which tells of the death of Simeon 
ben Yohai.—Jellinek 

37 Considerationes de Theologia Mystica, pt. II, ad fin. 


206 THE KABBALAH 


Let us present the last deductions which no one admitted with 
such frankness as the Kabbalists. ‘There is one degree among 
the seven degrees of existence (which are also called the seven 
tabernacles, n19D°7 yaw ),28 which is called the “‘all saint,” where 
all the souls unite with the supreme soul and mutually complete 
themselves. There, all return to unity and perfection. Every- 
thing unites into a single thought which spreads over and 
completely fills the universe. But the foundation of this thought, 
the light that is hidden within, can never be grasped or known; 
we may grasp only the thought that emanates from it. In this 
state, finally, the created can not be differentiated from the creator ; 
the same thought illumines them, the same will animates them; 
the soul as well as God commands the universe, and God executes 
what the soul commands.*? 

To close this analysis we must show in a few words the 
opinion the Kabbalists have of a traditional dogma which, while 
of secondary consideration in their system, is of the greatest 
importance in the history of religions. ‘The Zohar mentions more 
than once the fall and the curses which the disobedience of our 
first parents brought down upon human nature. It teaches us 
that, in yielding to the serpent, Adam called down death upon 
himself, upon his posterity and upon entire nature.*® Before his 
sin Adam was more powerful and more beautiful than the angels. 
If he had a body at all, it was not of that vile matter of which 
our bodies are made; he shared none of our needs and none of 
our sensual desires. He was enlightened by a higher wisdom 
which the divine messengers of the highest rank were condemned 
to envy.*! 


38 We have spoken above of the tabernacles of death, of degrada- 
tion and of hell; here it refers to tabernacles of life. 

39 NT OIDYSNYNY NID ONT NN NSD opssnne 7D DWP wD ooNn 
“712 DR VID PRY NI RIN NAD MAINO NPIINNS 3r7 IND NT oO 
syay n”apni—Part I, fol. 48a, b, sect. Breshith (mows). 

40 22 RYN NVYSNN ROSY ANNDNR DIN RYN ox OPT nwo 
poy 999 Nn» 0°73) Part I, fol. 145b, sect. ni751n. 

41 (SoM NBS POIPNY 1992 Wyk Iwhnk xont 119 —Part III, fol. 
83b, sect. pwitp (Kdoshim). 


TH Ee ke ANB BY ANT AH 207 


We can not say, however, that this dogma is the same as the 
dogma of “original sin.’”’ In fact, if we consider only the posterity 
of Adam, we do not deal here with a crime which no human 
virtue is able to expunge, but with a hereditary misfortune, with 
a terrible punishment which extends into the future as well as 
into the present. “The pure man,” says the text, ‘is in himself 
the real sacrifice which may serve as an expiation; the righteous 
is therefore the sacrifice and expiation of the universe.” 
MAB NP IY NT OY IBIS woo NID WN ANI WRT WI 13 
Part I, fol. 65a, sect. NDVI NR NID NOT NIN 
m3 (Noah). 

They even go so far as to represent the angel of death as the 
greatest benefactor in the universe; “for,” they say, “the Law 
was given to us as a protection against him; on his account the 
righteous will inherit those sublime treasures which are reserved 
for them in the life to come.’”42 However, this old belief in the 
fall of man, which ts so positively taught in Genesis, is ably set 
forth in the Kabbalah as a natural fact, just as the creation of 
the soul has been explained previously. ‘Before Adam sinned he 
obeyed only the wisdom whose light shines from above; he had as 
yet not separated himself from the tree of life. But when he 
yielded to the desire of knowing the things here below and to 
descend to them, he was tempted by them, he became acquainted 
with evil and forgot the good; he separated himself from the tree 
of life. Before they committed this sin, they heard the voice 
from on high, they were in possession of higher wisdom and 
retained their sublime and luminous nature. But after their sin, 
they did not understand even the voice from below.’ 

We fail to see how the opinion just expressed can be opposed 
when we are taught that Adam and Eve, before they were beguiled 
by the subtleness of the serpent, were exempt not only from the 
need of a body, but did not even have a body, that is to say, they 


42 Part II, fol. 163a, b, sect. 87°) (Va-yeeroh). 
43 Part I, fol. 52a, b, sect. noyxi2 (Breshith). 


208 eH EK ACB BACB AH 


were not of the earth? Both were pure intelligences, happy spirits 
like those dwelling in the abode of the elect. This explains the 
Scriptural text where they are represented as nude during their 
state of innocence, and when we are told by the writer of sacred 
history that God clothed them in coats of skin, he meant to say 
that God provided them with bodies and the faculty of sensation, 
so they might be able to inhabit this world to which they were 
drawn by an imprudent desire, or by the desire to know good 
and evil. We give here one of the numerous passages where this 
idea, adopted also by Philo and by Origen, is expressed in a very 
clear manner: ‘‘When our forefather Adam inhabited the Garden 
of Eden, he was clothed, as all are in heaven, with a cloak of 
the higher light. When he was driven from the Garden of Eden 
and was compelled to submit to the needs of this world, what 
happened then? God, the Scriptures tell us, made for Adam and 
his wife coats of skin and clothed them; for before this they had 
coats of light, of that higher light used in Eden... . The good 
actions accomplished by man on earth draw upon: him a part of 
that higher light which shines in heaven. It is this light which 
serves him as garment when he is to enter into another world 
and appear before the Holy One, Whose name be praised. Thanks 
to this garment he is able to taste the bliss of the elect, and to 
look into the luminous mirror.44 That it may be perfect in all 
respects, the soul has a different garment for each of the two 
worlds it is to inhabit, one for the earthly world, and one for 
the higher world.’’4 

On the other hand we know already that death, which is but 
sin itself, is not an universal curse, but solely a voluntary evil; 
it does not exist for the righteous who unites with God by a 
love-kiss ; it strikes only the wicked who leaves all his hope behind 
in this world. The dogma of original sin seems to have been 


44 That is to say, as has been explained above, to know Truth face 
to face through intuition. 

45 "997 NwNa5. wasn MP My Xn MT ID NWR bix8—Zohar, part 
II, fol. 229b, sect. °71pB (P’koodah). 


de iste ALB BeAr ATH 209 


adopted rather by the modern Kabbalists, principally by Isaac 
Luria, who believed that all souls were born with Adam, and 
that they all formed one and the same soul ; he, therefore, regarded 
them all equally guilty of the first act of disobedience. But, 
while showing them thus degraded since the beginning of the 
creation, he accords them, at the same time, the faculty of elevating 
themselves through their own efforts by fulfilling all the command- 
ments of God. ‘Therefore, the obligation to bring the souls out 
of this state, and to fulfil, as far as possible, the precept of the 
low: “Be fruitful and multiply.” ‘Therefore also, the necessity 
of metempsychosis, for one life period does not suffice for this 
work of rehabilitation.4® Even under another form, it is always 
the ennobling of our earthly existence and the satisfaction of life 
that is offered the soul as the only means of obtaining that 
perfection the need and the germ of which it carries in itself. 

It is not part of our plan to pass judgment upon the vast 
system we have explained. Besides, we could not do it without 
profaning the strongest conceptions of the philosophy and the 
religious dogmas, the mystery of which is justly respected. We 
intend to play only the modest part of an interpreter; yet, we are 
convinced, at least, that, notwithstanding the obscurity of the 
language and the incoherence of the form; notwithstanding those 
puerile reveries which interrupt at every step the course of serious 
’ thought, historical truth has not much to complain of us. Were 
we tO measure now, in a most summary manner, the space we 
have travelled, we shall find that the Kabbalah; as presented to 
us by the Sefer Yetzirah and the Zohar, is composed of the 
following elements: 

1. By taking all the facts and all the words of the Scripture 
as symbols, it teaches man to have confidence in himself; it puts 
reason in the place of authority, and calls into existence a 
philosophy in the very bosom and under the protection of religion. 

2. For the belief in a creative God, apart from nature, and 


46 See Aytz Hay-yim, Treatise on Metempsychosis, liv. I, ch. 1. 


> 


210 Teo SR AGB EB sAg aA GH 


Who, notwithstanding His omnipotence, had to spend an eternity 
in inactivity, it substitutes the idea of an universal substance, 
infinite in reality, always active, always thinking, the immanent 
cause of the universe, but not confined by it; to whom, finally 
“to create’ means nothing else but to think, exist and develop 
itself. 

3. Instead of a purely material world, apart from God, 
sprung from nothingness and destined to return there, the 
Kabbalah recognizes innumerable forms under which the divine 
substance develops and manifests itself according to invariable 
laws of the idea. All exists at first, united in the supreme 
intelligence before realizing itself in a sentient form. Therefore, 
two worlds, one an intelligible or higher, the other an inferior 
or material. 

4. Of all the forms, man 1s the most exalted, the most 
complete, and the only one permitted to represent God. Man 
ts the bond and the transition between God and the world, he 
reflects both in his double nature. Like everything else of a 
finite nature, man ts also at first included in the absolute substance 
with which he must unite again some day when he will be 
prepared by the developments to which he is susceptible. But 
we must differentiate the absolute form of man, the universal 
form of man from the particular man which is, more or less, a 
faint reproduction of the other. The first one, commonly called 
the celestial man, is entirely inseparable from the divine nature; 
it is its first manifestation. 

Some of these elements serve as a basis of systems which may 
be looked upon as contemporaneous with the Kabbalah. Others 
have already been known at a much earlier time. For the history 
of human intelligence, though, it is of very great interest to find 
out whether the esoteric doctrine of the Hebrews is really original, 
or whether it is but a disguised copy. ‘This question, and the 
one dealing with the influence exerted by the Kabbalistic ideas, 
will be treated in the third and last part of this work. 


PART THREE 


ay picra ALAS, b 
: 


LA hrs earthy 
ae) Rie hte 
ie + 
P| oN we) 
: Le 
Ot Atty 

Eee s ; 
* a 
F 
‘ is 
f : 
+ 
pag 
3 i ‘ 
‘ re 
: x 
* 
} 
2 ; 
I 
: 
‘ 
. 
; 
at 
ade) 
m 
"See % 





CHAPTER I 


SYSTEMS WHICH OFFER SOME RESEMBLANCE TO 
, THE KABBALAH 


RELATION OF THE KABBALAH TO THE 
PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO 


The systems which, because of their nature, or because of the 
age which has given rise to them, seem likely to have served as 
basis and pattern for the esoteric doctrine of the Hebrews, are 
partly philosophical and partly religious. To the first belong 
the systems of Plato, of his unfaithful Alexandrian disciples, and 
Philo, whom we can not possibly confound with the latter. Of 
the religious systems we can mention at present Christianity only, 
and that in a general way. Right here, though, I wish to state 
_ frankly that none of these grand theories of God and Nature 
can explain to us the origin of the traditions with which we have 
previously become acquainted. It is this important point we 
wish to establish first. 

No one will deny that there is a great analogy between the 
Platonic philosophy and certain metaphysical and cosmological 
principles taught in the Zohar and in the Book of Formation. 
On both sides we see the Divine Intelligence or the Word shaping 
the universe according to types contained within Himself before 
things were brought forth. On both sides we see numbers play 
the role of intermediaries between the ideas, between the supreme 
' idea and the objects which are the incomplete manifestation in 
the world of this idea. On both sides, finally, we find the 

213 


214 CO Hv Ra Ab BCA see EL 


dogmas of the pre-existence of the souls, of reminiscence and of 
metempsychosis. “These various resemblances are so striking that 
the Kabbalists themselves—I refer to the modern Kabbalists— 
recognized them, and in order to explain them, they thought it 
best to make Plato a disciple of Jeremiah,? just as others made 
Aristotle a disciple of Simon the Just.” 

But will any one dare to conclude from such superficial 
relations that the works of the Athenian philosopher inspired the 
first authors of the Kabbalah? and what is more astonishing, 
that this science, of strange origin and the child of a heathen 
mind, was held in such a high regard and considered such a deep 
mystery by the Mishnah? Strange to say, those who hold toa 
this opinion are just the very critics who look upon the Zohar 
as a mere invention at the close of the thirteenth century, and 
let it therefore come into existence at a time when Plato was not 
known; for no one will claim that the scattered citations in the 
works of Aristotle, and the caustic criticism accompanying them, 
can give a conception of the Platonic doctrine. 

In no case can the actual affiliation of the Kabbalah with the 
Platonic philosophy be admitted, a view we shall now endeavor 
to submit to our scrutiny. I shall not rely upon external reasons 
which will be more opportune later on. I shall only remark 
here that the resemblances first noticed in the two doctrines are 
soon wiped out by their differences. Plato acknowledged (in 
abstracto) two principles: spirit (causa intelligens) and matter— 
the intelligent cause and the inert substance; although from what 
he says, it is hard to have as clear an idea of the second as of the 


1 Compare my review on Lindo’s English translation of the “Con- 
ciliator” by Manasseh ben Israel in Fuerst’s “Orient” of 1848, col. 
348.—Jellinek 

2 Compare Aree-Nohem (The Roaring Lion) by Leon de Modena, 
ch. XV, p. 44 (edited by Dr. Julius Fuerst, Leipzig, 1840). Others 
maintain that Aristotle, while in Palestine with Alexander the Great, 
saw the works of Solomon, and that these furnished him the principal 
elements for his philosophy. See 21pX »5*3y (Paths of Faith), by R. 
Meir Aldoli, (Should be Aldabi—Jellinek.) 


WHE KA BB ALLA A 215 


first. ‘The Kabbalists, on the contrary, encouraged by the incom- 
prehensible dogma of a creation ex nihilo (from nothing), admitted 
as basis of their system the absolute unity; a God Who is, at 
once, the cause, the substance and the form of all that is, as well 
as of all that can be. 

Like every one else, they too acknowledge the struggle of 
good and evil, of spirit and matter, of power and resistance; but 
they subordinate this struggle to the absolute principle and ascribe 
it to the difference which necessarily exists in the generation of 
things between finite and the infinite, between all individual 
existence and its limitation, between the furthest points of the 
scale of beings. This basic dogma, which the Zohar sometimes 
interprets by deep philosophical expressions, appears already in 
the Sefer Yetzirah, under quite a phantastic and coarse form, it 
is true, but at the same time, clear enough to permit the belief 
in its originality, or to reject, at least, the intervention of the 
Greek philosopher. When we compare the theory of ideas and 
the theory of the Sefiroth with each other, and these two with 
the lower forms that flow from them, we shall find them separated 
by the same distance, and we can not help understanding it 
otherwise, noticing as we do, dualism on one side and absolute 
unity on the other. 

By creating an abyss between the intelligent principle and 
inert matter, Plato can see in the ideas nothing but forms of the 
intelligence, I mean of that supreme intelligence of which our 
intelligence is but a conditional and limited part. These forms 
are everlasting and incorruptible like the principle to which they 
belong; for these forms are themselves the idea and the intelli- 
gence, there can consequently be no intelligent principle without 
them. In this sense they represent also the essence of things, 
since the latter can not exist without form or without the imprint 
of the divine idea. But they (the forms) can not represent all 
that exists in the inert principle, neither can they represent the 
principle itself; and yet, since the principle exists, and since it 


216 J Hai OoKS AS BeBe ASA kt 


exists, like the first, in all eternity, it is necessary that it have 
also its own essence, its distinctive and invariable attributes, 
although it is subject to all changes. | 

We reject the argument that Plato meant to point out matter 
as a mere negation, that is to say, the boundary which circum- 
scribes each particular existence. This role he assigns (in Phoebus, 
p. 334, trans. of Victor Cousin) expressly to the numbers, the 
principle of every boundary and of every proportion. But along 
with the numbers and the productive and intelligent Cause, he 
admits also that which he calls the “Infinite,” which is more or 
less susceptible to that from which the things are produced, in 
short—matter—or, to be more exact, substance separated from 
causality. “There are therefore existences, and this is the point 
we are driving at, or rather forms of existence—unchangeable 
modes of being—which find themselves necessarily excluded from 
the number of ideas. ‘This is not the case with the Sefiroth of 
the Kabbalah, among which we see matter itself ( 5}p»—Y’sod) 
figure. ‘The Sefiroth represent both the forms of existence and 
those of the idea, the attributes of the inert. substance, that is to 
say, of the passivity or the resistance as well as the forms of the 
intelligent causality, since they consider them perfectly identical. 

The Sefiroth are therefore divided into two great classes, 
which are designated by the metaphysical language of the Zohar as 
the “Fathers” and the “Mothers,” and these two, apparently 
opposite, principles, coming from one inexhaustible source—the 
Infinite (Ayn Sof)—unite again into one common attribute which 
is called the “Son,” whence they separate under a new form to 
unite anew. ‘Therefore the trinitarian system of the Kabbalists, 
which no one can possibly confound with the Platonic trinity. 

Having made reservations for our further discussions, it must 
be admitted that in consideration of such different foundations, 
the Kabbalistic system, even if brought forth under the influence 
of the Greek philosophy, may still claim originality. For absolute 
originality is exceedingly rare, and perhaps never to be found in 


Het Ko Ar BeBe ALAA H. 217 


metaphysics; and it is known that Plato himself does not owe 
everything to his own genius. All great conceptions of the human 
mind on the supreme cause, on the first existence and on the 
generation of things, have shown themselves under a more or 
less coarse veil before assuming a character really worthy of reason 
and science. ‘Thus, a tradition which is not derogatory to the 
independence and to the fertility of the philosophical spirit, may 
become admissible. 

And yet, notwithstanding this protecting principle, we 
maintain that the Kabbalists had no connection whatever, at 
least directly, with Plato. Indeed, if we picture these people 
having drawn from the source of the most independent philosophy, 
and having been nourished by this jesting and pitiless dialectic 
which puts everything to question and which destroys as often 
as it builds up; if we imagine also that, even by a superficial 
reading of the “Dialogues,” they were initiated into all the 
elegance of the most refined civilization, are we then able to 
understand the irrational, the rude and unbridled imagination in 
the most important passages of the Zohar? Can we explain that 
extraordinary description of the “White Head,” those gigantic 
metaphors mingled with puerile details, that supposition of a 
secret revelation older than that of Sinai, and, finally, those 
incredible efforts, aided by the most arbitrary means, to find their 
doctrine in the Holy Scriptures ?? 

In these different characters I recognize, indeed, a philosophy 
which, springing from the bosom of an eminently religious people, 
dares not admit its own audacity, and which, for its own satisfac- 
tion, tries to cover itself with the cloak of authority. But I 
can not reconcile these characters with the perfectly free choice 
of a strange and independent philosophy which openly avers that 


3 This last argument is a weak one; for it has been at all times 
the task of the Jewish religious philosophers to carry into the Bible the 
given contents of a philosophy. It has been done so from the time of 
Saadia to the time of Hirsch. As to the arbitrary means, it is part of 
the nature of mysticism to look for and find symbols to replace its 
ideas. Indeed, Neoplatonism came forth from Platonism.—Jellinek 


218 Hh RyA Ba Beas ee 


it holds its authority, power and enlightenment from reason only. 
Moreover, the Jews never denied their foreign teachers, nor did 
they refuse to pay respect to other nations for the knowledge 
they sometimes borrowed from them.* ‘Thus we are told by the 
Talmud that the Assyrians furnished them with the names of 
the months, of the angels and with the characters of the letters 
which they use to this day for the writing of their holy books.° 
Later on, when the Greek language began to spread among them, 
the most venerable teachers of the Mishnah spoke with admira- 
tion of it,® and permitted even its use at religious ceremonies in 
place of the scriptural text. During the Middle Ages, when 
the Jews were initiated by the Arabs into the philosophy of 
Aristotle, they did not hesitate to give the same honor to this 
philosopher as to their own, except, as we said before, that they 
made him a disciple of their oldest teachers, and ascribed a book 
to him in which they picture the head of the Lyceum acknowledg- 
ing upon his deathbed the God and the Law of Israel.8 
Finally, in a very remarkable passage previously quoted by us, 
we are informed by the Zohar itself that the books of the Orient 
come very close to the Divine Law and to some views taught by 
the School of Simeon ben Yohai.? It is added only that this 
ancient wisdom was taught by the patriarch Abraham to the 


4 We must take into consideration that the Talmudists were very 
scrupulous about mentioning the name of the originator of an opinion. 
Compare especially Abboth, ch. 6, the saying: 19D)8 OY2 135 “DIN 3D 
DSH ASixa N20 (One who mentions anything in the name of the one 
who said it (at first), brings redemption into the world).—Jellinek 

5 Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh-Hashanah Ofpy 15¥ | won) pSNdDn Minow 
2329 (The names of the angels and of the months came with them from 
Babylon). At another place (Tract. Sanhedrin ,ch. XXI) it says, in 
speaking of Ezra, that the characters of the letters were changed by him, 
1 Sy ans mnNw3 and that these characters are still called ‘ws 
(Assyrian). 

6 The Talmudist applied the Biblical passage mb’) nyn58 nb» (May 
God enlarge the boundary of Japhet), Genesis IX, 27, to the Greek 
language.—Jellinek 

7 Babylonian Talmud, Tractat Megillah, ch. I, Tract. Sota, ad fin. 

8 This book is called mipnn 150, Book of the Apple. 

9 Zohar, part I, fol. 99, 100. Sect. x7". 


ie iets eae Et 219 


children begotten from his concubine, and by whom, according 
to the Bible, the Orient was populated. What then would have 
prevented the authors of the Kabbalah from dedicating also a 
souvenir to Plato? Could they not just as easily as their modern 
followers have him schooled by some prophet of the true God? 
According to Eusebius!® this is exactly what Aristobulus!! did 
when, after interpreting the Bible in accordance with the 
philosophy of Plato, he did not hesitate to accuse the latter of 
having taken his knowledge from the books of Moses. The same 
strategy is used by Philo against the head of the Portico.” 18 

We are, therefore, entitled to the opinion that the origin of 
the Kabbalistic system is not to be looked for in the so-called 
Platonism. Let us see if we can find it with the philosophers of 
Alexandria, 


10 Eusebius of Caesarea, considered the father of Church history, 
(264-340).—Transl. 

11 Aristobulus of Paneas, Jewish Alexandrian philosopher of the 
second or third century B. C.—Transl. 

12 Quod omnis probus liber, p. 873, Ed. Mangey. 

18 Refers to the philosopher Zeno (360-270 B. C.), founder of the 
school of Stoics, so called because the disciples were taught on a “stoa” 
or porch.—Transl. 


CuHaprter II 


RELATION OF THE KABBALAH TO THE 
ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL 


The metaphysical and religious doctrine which we have 
gathered from the Zohar has undoubtedly a more intimate 
resemblance to the so-called Neoplatonic philosophy than to pure 
Platonism. But before pointing out what is common to both, 
are we justified in the conclusion that the first of these two systems 
is necessarily a copy of the other? One word would suffice for 
the solution of this question were we content with a superficial 
criticism; for we would have no trouble to establish—and we did 
establish in the first part of this book—that the secret doctrine 
of the Hebrews existed long before Ammonius Saccas,! Plotinus? 
and Porphyrius® changed the aspect of philosophy. But compelled 
by weighty reasons, we would rather admit that it took the 
Kabbalah several centuries to develop and establish itself in its 
definite state. The supposition that the Kabbalah borrowed a 
great deal from the Pagan school of Alexandria remained since 
then in full force, and merits therefore our serious consideration ; 
especially so when we bear in mind that after the revolution 
brought about in the Orient by the Macedonian armies many 
Jews adopted the language and the civilization of their conquerors. 


1 Ammonius Saccas (sack-carrier). Greek philosopher and founder 
of the Neoplatonic school, (243 C. E.)—Transl. 

2 Greek philosopher, founder of the Neoplatonic system of 
philosophy, (c. 205-270 C. E.).—Transl. ’ 

3 Greek philosopher of the Neoplatonic school, (233-305).—Transl. 


220 


THE (KALB B ACD AH 221 


We must start from the already proven fact (See Part One)— 
a fact that will show itself still clearer as we go along—that the 
Kabbalah came to us from Palestine, as attested by its close connec- 
tion with the rabbinical institutions. For the Jews of Alexandria 
spoke Greek, and in no case would they have made use of the 
popular and corrupt idiom of the Holy Land. Now, what 
relations do we meet with between these countries and the 
civilizations they represent, from the time the Neoplatonic school 
made its appearance until the middle of the fourth century, a 
period during which Judea witnessed the dying of its last schools, 
of its last patriarchs, and of the last sparks of its intellectual and 
religious life?* Had the Pagan philosophy penetrated the Holy 
Land during this lapse of time, it would naturally imply the 
intervention of the Alexandrian Jews, to whom during a course 
of several centuries the principal monuments of the Greek civiliza- 
tion were as familiar as the holy books, a fact borne out by the 
Septuagint and the example of Aristobulus. 

But the Alexandrian Jews had so little communication with 
their Palestinian brethren that they completely ignored the 
rabbinical institutions which played such a great role with the 
latter, and which, for more than two centuries before the common 
era, were already deeply rooted in them.® When the works of 
Philo, the book of Wisdom, and the last book of the Maccabees, 
both of which flowed from an Alexandrian pen, are scrutinized 
carefully, we find no mention there of any of the names which 
stand in Judea for the most sacred authority, as that of the high 
priest Simon the Just, the last representative of the Great 
Synagogue,® and those of the tannaim who succeeded him in 


4 See Yost, History of the Jews, vol. IV, Book XIV, ch. VIII; 
and in the General History of the People of Israel, by the same author, 
vol. LL ch; -V. 

5 We adopt the chronology of Yost, just because it is so strict, 
that is to say, it diminishes as much as possible the antiquity attributed 
by the Jewish historians to their religious traditions. 

6 novia nD 4.eMD MN YIN NyYow, Abot, 1, 2. (Simon the Just 
was of the remnant of the Great Synagogue) —Jellinek 


wee eH RCA BABAR Ant 


veneration by the people. We never find there even an allusion 
to the famous disputes of Hillel and Shammai,’ nor to the 
different customs which were collected later in the Mishnah, and 
which attained legal power. In his work “Life of Moses,’® 
Philo does mention an oral tradition which has been preserved 
by the Elders of Israel, and which was usually studied with the 
text of the Scriptures. But this tradition, even if not accidentally 
invented to interweave at pleasure fables in the life of the Hebrew 
prophets, has nothing in common with the traditions which form 
the basis of the rabbinical cult. It reminds us of the Midrashim, 
or those popular, unauthoritative legends which abound in Judaism 
at every epoch of its history. 

The Palestinian Jews, again, were no better informed of what 
happened with their scattered brethren in Egypt. ‘They knew 
only from hearsay the pretended version of the Septuagint which 
dates from a much earlier epoch than the one holding our atten- 
tion at present. ‘They eagerly accepted the fable of Aristeas® 
which harmonized so well with their national self-love and with 
their inclination to the marvelous.1° Not a word is found in 


7 These two great leaders in the Mishnah flourished from 78 to 44 
B. C. They therefore lived before Philo. 

8 De vita Mosis, liv. I, init.; liv. II, p. 81, ed. Mangey. These are 
the words of Philo. Madov atta xai & PiBAwv tav teg@v ... xab 
Taga twOv dxd tod Ebvouvc meccPtéquv. Td yae Aeydpeva toig dva- 
yiwooxopévors del ouvi@arov. 

® The author probably means the “Letter of Aristeas” where the 
story of the Septuagint is told.—Transl. 

10 Tractat Megillah, fol. 9. This passage clearly shows not only 
that the authors of the Talmud did not know the Septuagint (there 
were supposed to be seventy-two translators), but that, on account of 
their ignorance of the Greek language and literature, they could not 
possibly have known it. Indeed, in enumerating the changes made in 
the text of the Pentateuch by the seventy-two Elders who were especially 
inspired by the Holy Spirit for that purpose, they point out ten places, 
some of which never existed, some of which not the least trace had 
been found, and the most of which are either ridiculous or impossible. 
Thus, to cite only two examples, they contend that it was necessary to 
change the first three words of Genesis; that instead of Bereshith Bara 
Elohim (in the beginning God created), we read Elohim Bara Bereshith 
(God created in the beginning) ; for, they said, had the original arrange- 


THE KABBALAH 223 


the Mishnah and in the two Gemaras which would be applicable 
either to the philosopher Aristobulus, to Philo, or to the author of 
the apocryphal books mentioned before. Still more surprising is the 
fact that the Talmud never mentions either the Therapeutae,2* 
or even the Essenes, 1% although the latter were already well 


ment been retained, king Ptolemy would have believed that there existed 
a higher principle than God, and that this principle was Bereshith. 

But I fail to see how such a misapprehension can possibly occur in 
a Greek translation, whether the two words év dxf be placed at the 
beginning or at the end. And who would take these two words as the 
name of the divinity? As to the Hebrew word Bereshith, why should it 
at all be preserved in any translation? In the passage in Leviticus 
(XI, 6), where Moses forbids the use of the hare, they introduce (always 
in the name of the Seventy) a still more ridiculous variant. They say 
that the Hebrew name of the forbidden animal ( n237>8—Arnebeth) was 
the same as that of Ptolemy’s wife, and that the king be not shocked by 
linking his wife’s name with an impure thought, the following para- 
phrase was used: that which is nimble of foot (o°595n nwyy). They 
possibly meant to designate here the family of the Lagidia (hares). 
But, in any case, it is impossible to endure any longer this ignorance 
of history and of Greek literature. What concerns the paraphrase 
spoken of above, this is entirely imaginary. 

11 A Jewish ascetic sect that originated in Egypt during the first 
century.—Transl. 

12 Asarya de Rosi, a critic of the sixteenth century (not fifteenth, 
as given by the author.—Jellinek) vainly maintains that the Baythusims, 
so often mentioned in the Talmud, can be no other than the Essenes. 
The proof he offers is too shallow to deserve the least consideration.* 
He thinks that the name Baythusim, 0'D1n°3, is a corruption of the word 
which expresses in Hebrew the sect of the Essenes, n°Dix n°. (Beth 
Uhsim). Yet, relying upon such a basis, a modern learned critic accepted 
the identity of these two religious sects. See Gefroerer, Critical History 
of Primitive Christianity, Part II, p. 346, 347. 

* That the Talmud knows and thinks of the Essenes has peeu 
proven by Rapaport, the father of modern Jewish criticism, in his 
biography of the religious poet (Paytan—10’D) Kaliri, Note. 20.2 They 
are mentioned in the Talmud (Berakoth 9b) under the name of 
psy as RID HN “holy congregation of Jerusalem” and 1p°n 
(mMx0l) “moral pious.” Compare also “Orient,” year 1840, col. 604. 
Year 1842, col. 440.—Jellinek ‘ 

@ Of the same opinion is Dr. Lippe, an erudite and deep talmudic 
scholar, who says in the introduction to his “Das Evangelium Matthaei 
vor dem Forum der Bibel und des Talmud” (The Gospel according to 
Matthew before the Tribunal of Bible and Talmud, translated by me): 
It (the sect of the Essenes) is met with in the Talmud under different 
names, depending upon the various peculiarities and occupations in 
which its members appeared among the people. ‘They are called 
“Morning Baptizers’ (Haemerobaptists— nv ‘2210 ), because of their 


224 DPHE KAB BAL A H 


established in the Holy Land during the life of the historian 
Josephus. Such silence can be explained only by the origin of 
these two sects and by the language they employed for the trans- 
mission of their doctrines. Both were brought forth in Egypt, 
and probably kept up the use of the Greek language, even upon 
the soil of their religious fatherland. ‘The silence of the Talmud, 
especially with regard to the Essenes, would otherwise be still 
more unexplainable; for, according to Josephus, these sects were 
known already during the reign of Jonatas Maccabeus, one 
hundred and fifty years before the Christian era. 

Can we possibly believe that the Jews of Palestine knew much 
more of what was going on in the Pagan schools, equally distant, 
while they were so ignorant of matters pertaining to their own 
brethren some of whom they could justly have been proud of? 
We have already said that they held the Greek language in 
high esteem; but were they sufficiently familiar with it to enable 
them to follow the philosophic trend of their time? We are 
perfectly justified in doubting this. For, above all, we find neither 
trace nor mention in either Talmud?! or Zohar of any monument 


custom of bathing in the Jordan every morning; the Chaste (Orv) 
“Men of Pure Thought” (nytm p32); “The Silent Ones” (n°xwn); “The 
Healers” (nD8).—Transl. 

13 Hirsh Hayes thoroughly disposed of this proposition of de Rossi 
in Fuerst’s “Orient” 1840, col. 603.—Jellinek 

14 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, ch. 9. Josephus does 
not state that the Essenes were established in Palestine at that time. 

15 This is disputable on many points. Besides the great number of 
Greek words adopted by the Talmud, I want also to point out that 
the Mishnah knew already of Homer. In Tract Yodahyim we read: 
DTT nk PROD AK DT HD “The books of Homer do not defile, 
the hands.” 

Again, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tract, Sanhedrin, fol. 28a; 
120 VOD} ND 72° aD Bi DIN AD2 NIP rlN el ieee ele Uae 
NYRI NPD IQ NRVPA We) 1M yynDIw aN 493 HOA MPH 93yk ,woys 
“Rabbi Akiba says: Even those who read the irreligious books of Ben 
Laon (forfeit the future life) ; but he who reads the books of Homer 
and other similar books, is considered as though reading a letter.” 
That D179! is identical with Homer is admitted by R. Benjamin Musafia. 
Compare the talmudical dictionary Aruch under p19, and Musafia’s 
commentary of it. See also \noX 718 by S. and M. Bondi (Bessau, 
1812), under 537°», —Jellinek 


‘(Dele KA BeB AjLlASH 225 


of the Greek civilization. How, then, is it possible to understand. 
a language when the works it produced are not known? ‘Then 
again, we learn from Josephus himself,4® who was born in 
Palestine, and who spent most of his life there, that this famous 
historian required help for the writing, or rather, for the trans- 
lating of his works into Greek. At another place in his works? 
he expresses himself still more explicitly on this subject, applying 
in general to his compatriots what he says of himself; he then 
adds that the study of languages is looked upon in his country as 
a profane occupation, worthy rather of slaves than of free people; 
and that, finally, only those are held there in great esteem and 
called savants who are very highly proficient in the knowledge 
of the religious laws of the Holy Scriptures. 

And yet Josephus belonged to one of the most distinguished 
families. Of royal blood and of priestly rank, no one was more 
fit to be initiated in all the knowledge of the land, in the religious 
knowledge as well as in that which prepares one of noble birth 
for a political life. In devoting himself to the profane studies, 
the author of the “Jewish Antiquities” and of the “Jewish War’ 
was not subject to the same scruples as his compatriots who 
remained true to their country and to their belief.1® 

Admitting even that the Greek language was much more 
cultivated in Palestine than we are justified in thinking, we are 
still far from drawing any conclusion therefrom upon the influence 
of the Alexandrian philosophy; for the Talmud makes a clear 
distinction between the Greek language and, what it calls the 
Greek science,?? 53n5 nosy) wd sind ne noon (Greek science 
for itself, Greek language for itself); as much as the first was 


16 Josephus against Appion, I, 9. 

Xenoduevoc tot noedc tiyw ‘EAAyvida 
Pav ovveoyoic, ottwac tnxornocuev tov nodEewv thy maoddwouv. 

17 Jewish Antiquities, lib. XX, IX, at the end of the book. 

18 Josephus’ character is appreciated in a very interesting thesis 
defended recently (1843) in the Faculty of Sciences at Paris by Philarete 
Chasles: “On the Historical Authority of Flavius Josephus.” 

19 Tract. Sotah fol. 49b at end. 


226 THE KABBALAH 


respected and honored, so much was the latter execrated. The 
Mishnah which, as a collection of legal decisions, expresses itself 
very concisely, confines itself to prohibiting the bringing up of 
children in Greek learning; it adds, however, that this interdiction 
was carried out during the war with Titus.2° The Gemara, 
though, is more explicit, and sets that interdiction at an earlier 
date. “The following,” it says, “has been taught us by our 
masters: During the war which raged between the Hasmonian 
princes, Hyrcanus laid siege to Jerusalem, and Aristobulus was 
the besieged.21: 22 A chest full of coins was lowered every day 
along the outer wall, and in exchange thereof the animals required 
for sacrifices were sent up.22 Now, in the camp of the besieger 
there was an old man who was at home in the Greek learning. 
He said: As long as your enemies are having the means to hold 
divine service, they will not fall into your hands. When on 
the following day the chest full of coin was lowered as usual, a 
pig was sent up instead of the sacrificial animal. When half way 
up the rampart, the unclean animal dug its nails into the wall and 
the land of Israel trembled four hundred parasangs (Persian 
miles) around. At that time the following curse was pronounced: 


20 Ib. supr. .n’ai\) NON 132 NX PIN 35) Rdw wt pw Dy Sw DIDSID. 
(In the army of Titus it was forbidden to teach children Greek science). 

21 Attention to this discrepancy between the Gemara and the 
Mishnah is directed also in the Tosafoth (Appendices to the Talmud), 
Baba Kamah, fol. 82. It is the result of the vague historical knowledge 
of the Gemarists. Compare also my succeeding note.—Jellinek 

22 In the Talmud it really reads: p)3}2)pD"7N) O3BAD DIP WA FN 
yinao “Hyrcanus was within (therefore, the besieged) and Aristobulus 
without (the besieger)”; but the Talmud, not always exact in matters 
of historical data, refers here to the first fraternal struggle (60 B. C.) 
which does not correspond with the alleged passage in Josephus. Fol- 
lowing Josephus, therefore, I retained the translation of the author; 


although the event, according to the Talmud, would date back still 
further.—Jellinek 


23 The author’s translation “une caise remplie d’argent” does not 
correspond exactly with the text: 117397 MBIpa on? 19w9eN 1n—Jellinek 


® The mistake is a trifling one. Should read “basket of money.” hep 
means basket and not case.—Transl. 


Tet he KA BB As 7A 220 


Cursed be he who raises pigs; cursed be he who imparts Greek 
learning to his children.’’4 

Barring the fabulous and ridiculous account of the earthquake, 
this account is valuable for the critic. The gist is apparently true,. 
for it is also found in Josephus. (Jewish Antiquities, Vol. XIV, 
ch. 3.) According to him Hyrcanus’ men promised to give to the 
besieged sacrificial animals at one drachma per head, but when 
the money was delivered they refused to send the animals. This 
was considered by the Jews as doubly odious; for, according to 
Josephus, it violated not only the sworn trust in man, but it 
struck in some way God Himself. When we add to it the very 
probable new circumstance that the priests saw coming into the 
holy place an animal so utterly disgusting to them instead of 
the impatiently expected sacrifice, we can see the measure of 
blasphemy and perjury overflowing. Now then, who was responsi- 
ble for such acrime? Where are we to look for the first impulse ? 
Surely with those who neglected the Law of God for the wisdom 
of other nations. Whether or not this accusation be well founded, 
is of little importance; whether the anathema, justified or caused 
by that accusation, was pronounced during the Hasmonean war 
or during the war of Titus, is of still less importance to us. 
What does interest us, though, and what seems to us also beyond 
doubt, is the fact that Greek learning was looked upon in Palestine 
as a source of impiety, and constituted in itself a double sacrilege, 
no matter what degree it attained there. No sympathy, no alliance, 
therefore, could take place between those who were suspected of 
it and the founders and keepers of rabbinical orthodoxy. 

In the name of Rabbi Judah, who heard from an older teacher 
Samuel, the Talmud really gives us the following words of Simon, 
the son of Gamaliel, who played such a beautiful part in the 
Acts of the Apostles: There were a thousand children in the home 
of my father; five hundred studied the Law, and five hundred 


24 Ib. supr. This Gemara follows immediately the Mishnah quoted 
in the previous note. 


228 THE KABBALAH 


were instructed in Greek learning. ‘Today only myself here and 
the son of my father’s?® brother in Asia?¢ remain. To this 
objection the Gemara responds with: An exception is made with 
the family of Gamaliel because it was close to the royal court.*” 
Let us note, besides, that the entire passage is far from offering the 
same character as the previous one; we do not deal here with a 
general tradition,2? but with a simple hearsay of an individual 
witness who is already far removed from the source.?® Gamaliel’s 
character, as pictured by tradition, is best distinguished from that 
of the other teachers of the Law by his very attachment to. the 
orthodox wing of Judaism and by the general respect he inspired 
( vowodiddoxorog tiwtos mavtl Tt Aad ). °° 

It will be seen that such sentiments are not easily compatible 
with the accusation of impiety made against the Hellenists.*1 
What is more, this patriarch of the synagogue, quite aged already 
at the time of the apostles, had been dead a long time when the 
school of Alexandria was founded. Finally, since the house of 
Gamaliel was an exception, the fact, whatever it may be, should 
have disappeared with the cause, and we really do not find later 
the least trace of it. Offsetting this obscure and uncertain text, 


25 In the first edition the author had “Le fils de mon frére,” which 
Dr. Jellinek noted as incorrect. In the last edition the author took 
note of Dr. Jellinek’s correction, but still failed to give the correct 
translation of the text. He says “Le fils du frére de mon frére,” which 
certainly has no meaning. Possibly the printer’s devil slipped in here, 
and instead of the last “frére”’ it should read here “pére.” I followed - 
Jellinek’s translation which is the correct one. I only wish to add here 
that the last word in this quotation, the word “X’DX3, means “of Asia,” 
or perhaps “Essa,” the name of a place. (See Dr. Kohut’s Aruch).— 
Transl. 

26 NON M22 1 Od) HOR awd Dw SkIDY SDK ATINY 39 4X 
TR ROR OND TINY Ry mvs Ws MIX wen AMIN 1995 Niko won 

SONI NAN CAN 134 IND 

27 Tb. Supr..n}35n> pSNP YY sy ona Sy coND 

28 By “general tradition” is meant the "1229 %3n, “our Rabbis have 
taught.”—Transl. 

28 This testimony is not to be distrusted. Granted that the number 
is exaggerated; the fact, as corroborated by the exact names given, still 
remains true.—Jellinek 

80 This is the very expression used by the Gospel, Acts, V. 34-39. 

31 Yost, History of the Jews. Vol. III, p. 170ff. 


LHE* KABBALAHSH 1H | 


we find another text which is in perfect accord with the strict 
terms of the Mishnah. “Ben Domah asked his uncle Rabbi 
Ismael: Having studied all of the Law may I also study Greek 
science? The teacher cited the following verse to him: ‘The 
book of the Law shall not quit thy mouth; and thou shalt ponder 
over it day and night. Now then, he added, find an hour which 
is neither day nor night, and I shall permit you to devote it to 
the study of Greek science.”° 

The hypothesis that the Alexandrian philosophy found disciples 
among the teachers of Judea is totally overthrown by the passages 
previously quoted (and we do not know of any other) which 
justify our opinion that they did not even know the word 
““philosophy.”’3? 

Indeed, how can that old man who advised Hyrcanus to use 
against the enemy the exigencies of the cult—his own cult—be 
considered a philosopher! Such a policy would be worthy rather 
of a Machiavelli! How can philosophy be counted among the 
attainments necessary for the admission to the court of Herod! 
When we consult the oldest and most celebrated commentator, 
R. Solomon bar Isaac,24 (Rashi— *“w),?5 our opinion is con- 
firmed. “By Greek science,” he says, “the Talmud understands 
a scholastic language spoken by the courtiers and not understood 


82 nay) NON 1D 1105) 155 NF) By ND TINY MYw psa} XY —Tract. 
Menachoth, fol. 99b. 

88The word “philosopher” (bD\D1DI9.3 miAdoomos) is met with 
several times in Tractat Sabbath, fol. 116a, Aboda Zora, fol. 54b. In 
the last place a conversation between a philosopher and Gamaliel II 
is even quoted. Still, it does not interfere with the investigation of the 
author; on the contrary, these passages prove that to them philosophy 
was a source of impiety.—Jellinek 

84 The most famous commentator of Bible and Talmud. Born at 
Troyes, France, in 1049, died 1105.—Transl. 

35 In this and similar cases, Rashi is not an important authority; 
for he did not understand Greek. Generally speaking, Rashi may be 
made better use of for the Halakah of the Talmud. To Aboda Zora, 
54b, for example, Rashi comments the word }'51019'8 ~=s with nipiN DI 
“Pagan savants,” and the Tosafoth only say (Sabbath, fol. 116a) that 
they had heard from a Jew who came from Greece that the Greek 
meaning of the word p1p5D19"B is “Friend of Wisdom.”—Jellinek 


230 Sr byork Ar De bear ioe we rd 


by the people in general.’”°® This explanation, although very 
sensible, is perhaps a little narrow; but, to be sure, the doubtful 
expression to which it refers can not designate®’ anything but a 
certain general culture, or rather, a certain intellectual liberty 
brought about by the influence of Greek literature. 

While the religious traditions of the Jews show such hatred 
towards any wisdom coming from the Greeks, it is evident from 
the following passage with what enthusiasm, with what adoration 


8613 PID PY ANY PR) 19B 132 Or aIDY Aeon Ww? Rashi, com- 
mentary to the words n‘3\\) non in the quoted passage. Maimonides, 
in his commentary to the Mishnah, expresses himself on the same subject 
as follows: “By the Greek science we understand the signs—found in 
all languages—which digress from the right path, as the allegories® 
and riddles.” .mipnny pp yw TA TI By nyws. paw prin 
“No doubt,” he adds, “the Greeks had a similar language, although no 
trace of it is left with us.” ‘This opinion is utterly ridiculous, and does 
not deserve further consideration. We maintain the same of Gefroerer’s 
opinion (critical History of Primitive Christianity, Vol. II, p. 352). 
Depending upon Maimonides’ words, the German critic believes that, 
according to the Talmudists, the Greek learning was only a symbolic 
interpretation of the Scriptures by the Alexandrian Jews, and he comes 
to the conclusion that the mystic ideas of Palestine were borrowed from 
Egypt. But where can we find the least connection between these ideas 
and the advice given to Hyrcanus, or the customs prevailing at the 
court of Herod? 

@ Dr. Jellinek objects to the author’s rendition of tp. with 
“enigmas,” as well as to Gefroerer’s translation by «d&AAnyootau> 
(allegories). He thinks that the fundamental meaning of the word is 
“Andeutungen” (hints, allusions, suggestions). According to the Aruch. 
of Kohut, the word 151 means “to wink” (with the eye), or “to nod,” 
and he gives many examples in support of his opinion. It amounts, 
after all, to the same thing. An allegory is nothing else but “a 
description of one thing under the image of another, spoken so as to 
imply something else.” (Twentieth Century Dictionary), or to hint or 
wink at something.—Transl. 

37 To find out the real meaning of the words n'd\}) ADDN we 
must go back to the development of this expressoin. Just as the 
Greek word <ooqia» (Sophia) was originally used to express dexterity 
in corporeal art (Homer, II, 15, 42). and later to express political 
wisdom, so is the Hebrew word msm (Hakmah) used in the latter 
sense. The Jews express by 2m what the Greeks express by oogia. 
Now, then, as pvlitics and political wisdom are part of oogia, the Jews, 
therefore, understand by n‘3\} no3n—politics, and for this reason also 
the special designation nai’. This conception of n°311* nesn will 
cast much light on the quoted passage of the Talmud. Compare also 
further on about the conception of fp 2n—Jellinek 


Lei KAS Ben Ast AH 251 


and with what superstitious fear they speak of the Kabbalah: 
“Our teacher?? Yohanan Ben Zakkai*® once took to the road, 
mounted on an ass and accompanied by Rabbi Eleazar Ben Arak. 
The latter asked Ben Zakkai to teach him a chapter of the 
Merkaba. Did I not tell you, answered our teacher, that it is 
forbidden to expound the Merkaba even to one person unless he 
be wise and can deduce wisdom of his own accord ?49 Then 


88 We thus translate the word 125 (Rabban) not because it is a 
higher title than that of °27 (Rabbi), but because it is probably an 
abbreviation of the word 1329 (rabbenu) which literally means “our 
teacher;” “rabbi” means “my teacher.” ‘The first of these titles belongs 
to the Tannaim, and expresses more general authority than the second.* 

* More distinctly expressed, °25 is the title peculiar to the 
Tannaim; 137 (Rab) belongs to the Amariam. Besides, it is not settled 
whether the "1, (final Nun) in 139 (Rabban) is the abbreviated plural 
ending; for an (like the am in Arabic) is the connecting syllable of 
many nouns in Aramaic. The title t2. was given to Gamaliel I, II, 
III, and to Hananyah, the son of Gamaliel. This would lead to believe 
that the title 129 included also the idea of popular esteem.—Jellinek 

39 I can not desist from giving here some footnotes found in the 
German translation of the first edition; they seem to me of some impor- 
tance. This paragraph ends somewhat differently there. The author 
mentions Yohanan ben Zakkai as living before Gamaliel, the contemporary 
of the apostles. He makes the following footnote: ‘Yohanan ben 
Zakkai was the immediate disciple of Hillel the Elder, whose grandson 
was Gamaliel; Yohanan, therefore, must have been older (Tract. Sukah, 
fol. 28. Yost, History of the Israelites, Vol. III, 114 and 170). To this 
Dr. Jellinek remarks the following: “In the seventh volume of 3n D153 
—Lovely Vineyard—(Prague, 1843, S. Landau) there are very pointed 
remarks made by Dr. Michael Sachs on the character of Yohanan ben 
Zakkai. Especially noteworthy is the fifteenth Mishnah of the ninth 
chapter of the Tractate Sota to which he refers. ‘There it reads: 
moon yt 3b3 NDt 12 pny | novo ‘When Rabbi Yohanan ben 
Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom vanished.’ ‘The point at issue 
here is the correct meaning of the word jn»>n (Wisdom). But 
Dr. Sachs himself veils the interpretation of this word in mystery, and 
the reader is at a loss to know what he is to understand by it. 
Although this scholar is loath to identify it with the Kabbalah, he 
nevertheless admits that it has some connection with the Merkaba. I 
am, indeed, far from supporting the opinion that this Mn2n (Hakmah— 
Wisdom) is the Kabbalah as presented to us by the Zohar; yet, it 
seems to me that it belongs at least into that class, and that it testifies 
to the great age of the Kabbalistic ideas.”—Transl. 

40 In the text: Inyo 1930) DIN AT 1D OX KOK WMI MIDI Ry 
These words prove best the old age of the first Mishnah of the section 
in Haggiga. It is well known that the editor of the Mishnah collected 
the sayings of other teachers. Accordingly, these words, found in the 


232 eH Ex Raa SB AB CAS yA aE 


permit me at least, replied Eleazar, to repeat in your presence 
what you taught me of this science. Very well, speak, 
replied again our teacher; and thus saying he alighted from the 
ass, covered his head and sat upon a stone in the shade of an 
olive tree. ... Eleazar, son of Arak, had hardly begun to speak 
of the Merkaba, when a fire descended from heaven and enveloped 
all the trees of the field, which seemed to sing hymns, and from 
the fire there was heard the voice of an angel who expressed his 
joy at listening to these secrets... . 41 Later on, when two other 
teachers attempted to imitate the example of Eleazar, they were 
struck by miracles of no less astonishing a character. Dark clouds 
suddenly covered the sky, a rainbow-like meteor dazzled on the 
horizon, and the angels were seen hastening to listen, like a curious 
crowd gathering to witness a wedding march.*? Is it still 
possible to think, after reading these lines, that the Kabbalah is 
but a ray pilfered from the sun of Alexandrian Philosophy? . 


quoted Mishnah, belong to Yohanan ben Zakkai, the disciple of Hillel 
See fol. 28). Compare further on about Yohanan ben Zakkai.— 
Jellinek 

41 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Haggiga, fol. 14b. 

42 Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Haggiga, fol. 14b. These two passages 
form but one passage which does not end at the place we stopped. 
We must add the account of the dream narrated by R. Yohanan when 
he was told of the miracles performed by his disciples: “You and I 
were on the Mount Sinai when from on high in heaven there came 
a voice that said: Come up here, come up here! Spacious banquet 
halls and beautiful sofas are reserved for you. You, your disciples, 
and the disciples of your disciples are destined for the third class.”* Do 
not the last four words hint to the four worlds of the Kabbalists? This 
conjecture gains in certainty when we consider that above the third 
degree is the world of B’ree-ah of the divine attributes only. 

* Rashi comments on the expression n’w'5w n> (third class) with: 
RSW 19D) niawin mind ’3 “three classes that dwell before the Shekinah.” 
This explanation is also subscribed to by the Jerusalem Talmud which 
adds: 8133 NYA Dp TY oY Mind yaw  oIB mk Minow yaw 7pd RNs 
—“this is taken in the sense of one who concludes from the following 
words of the Psalms: In Thy presence is fulness of joy (Psalms, XVI, 2) 
—that there are seven classes of righteous ones in the world to come (by 
substituting the word ys)1w—to fill, to sate, the word yiw—seven).” 
This has, therefore, nothing in common with the worlds of the Kab- 
balists. Besides, all these tales are united into one story in the Jerusalem 
Talmud, which would also point to the legendary and uncertain character 
of this story.—Jellinek. 


(ere eee Bab Ar lar 1H 2a. 


However, we can not help acknowledging that there exist 
certain resemblances between the Kabbalah and the Neoplatonism 
of Alexandria which are impossible to account for except by a 
common origin; and this origin, perhaps, we shall have to look for 
elsewhere than in Judea and Greece. We need not point out here 
that the school of Ammonius, like the school of Simeon ben Yohai, 
also shrouded itself in mystery, and also resolved never to divulge 
the secrets of its doctrines (Porphyrius, Life of Plotinus) ; that 
through the medium of their last disciples, at least, they too passed 
themselves for the inheritors of an ancient and mysterious tradi- 
tion which emanated, necessarily, from a divine source ;** that 
they knew and applied in the same manner allegorical interpre- 
tations ;** and, finally, that they put the pretentious enlightenment 
of enthusiasm and faith above reason.*® ‘These then are the claims 
common to all kinds of mysticism. We shall not dwell upon 
them and delay thereby our getting sooner to the following, more 
important points. 

1. God is to Plotinus and his disciples, as well as to the 
adepts of the Kabbalah, the immanent cause of the substantial 
origin of things. Everything comes from Him, and everything 
returns to Him. He is the beginning and the end of all that 
is.46 He is, as Porphyrius says, everywhere and nowhere. He 


48 According to Proclus the philosophy of Plato existed at all times 
in the minds of exceptional men. As a mystery it was transmitted from 
generation to generation to Plato who communicated it to his disciples. 
‘Andoav pév tot TAdtwvos miiooogiav xal thy dex &Aguypor vout- 
two xata tH xoeitté6vov dyatoedf BovAnow... tic te GAAns axdons 
tudic petéxous xatéotyoe tov TDdtmvoc miiooogiac uai xoww@vous év 
GNOQONTOLS TAO TOV attod nocofuTéQuUV eETElAnGe. 

44 There are three ways of speaking of God, says Proclus: the 
mystic or divine, évdeaotixHc; the dialectic, Starextixc; and the 
symbolical, ovuBodixdc. Ib. supr. Ch. IV. This distinction reminds 
of the “three cloaks of the Law” accepted by the Zohar. 

45 This preference is fully expressed in all the works of Plotinus 
and of Proclus; but we cite principally the “Platonic theology” of the 
latter, Book I, ch. XXV, where faith is defined in a very remarkable 
manner. 

46 Proclus in the Theol. Plat. 1, 3; II, 4; Element. Theol. 27-34, 
and in the Commentary on Plato. 


234 Tint Geto cA bebe soe ee 


is everywhere, because all beings are in Him and through Him; 
He is nowhere, for He is neither in any particular existence, nor 
in the sum of all existences.47 He is so far from being the union 
of all individual existences, that he is even, says Plotinus, above 
existence, in which he sees but one of His manifestations. If 
He is superior to existence, He is equally superior to intelligence 
which, emanating necessarily from Him, can not reach Him. 
Then again, although He is generally called the Unity (xd &v), 
or the First, it would be. more appropriate to give Him no name 
at all, for there is no name that can express His essence; He is 
the Ineffable, the Unknown ( Goontos, &yvwotos).4® This is 
exactly the status of the Ayn Sof which is always called by the 
Zohar the Unknown of the Unknown, the Mystery of Mysteries, 
and which is placed by it far above the Sefiroth, even above those 
which represent existence in the highest degree of abstraction. 
2. According to the Alexandrian Platonics, God can be 
conceived only in the form of a trinity. There is first a general 
trinity that is composed of the following three expressions which 
have been borrowed from the language of Plato: the Unity or 
the Good (td év, 15 dyatdv), the Intelligence and the 
Soul of the world (Wpvy} tot xavtdc, tHv dkwv) or the 
Demiurge.*® But each of these three expressions gives birth to 
a particular trinity. The Good or the Unity, in its relations to 
the beings, is at the same time the principle of all love, or the 
object of universal desire (émeotév), the fulness of power and 
possession (ixavdv), and, finally, the highest perfection (téAgtov). 
As the possessor of the fulness of power, God tends to manifest 
Himself outwardly, to become the creating cause; as the object 
of love and desire, He attracts to Him all that is, and becomes 


47 TIdvta ta Ovta xal wh Ovta & tod Ocod xal év OH, xal ox 
ovtd¢ ... Ta OvtA TA aeVTA Yévvyntor BV adtod nol ev att Str wav- 
taxyov éxeivoc, tega Sf avtot, Sti adtd> obSapov. Sentent. ad intelil- 
gib., ch. XXXII. 

48 Proclus, in the Theol. of Plato, liv. II, ch. VI; II, 4. 

49 Plat. Ennead., II, liv. IX, 1; Ennead., liv. V, 3, etc. Proelus, 
Theol. Plato, I, 23. 


TRghAd NG MI aI Fae 235 


the final cause; and as the type of highest perfection, He changes 
these arrangements into an efficient virtue, the beginning and end 
of all existence.°° ‘This first trinity is called the goodness itself 
(tetas ayatosdnys) Next follows the intelligible trinity 
(tevas vonty) or divine wisdom, in whose bosom rest and unite, 
in its most perfect identity, existence, truth and intelligible truth, 
that is to say, the thinking object, the object thought of and the 
thought itself.51°2 Finally, the soul of the world, or the 
Demiurge, may also be considered a trinity—the demiurgic trinity 
(tovas Smpoveyrxy). It includes the universal substance or the 
universal power which acts in all nature, the motion or generation 
of beings, and their return to the bosom of the substance that 
produced them.*% 

These three aspects of nature may be replaced by three others 
which represent in a symbolic manner as many Olympic deities: 
Jupiter is the universal Demiurge of the souls and _bodies,** 
Neptune reigns over the souls and Pluto over the bodies. ‘These 
three particular trinities, which blend and lose themselves in 
some way in a general trinity, do not differ much from the classi- 
fication of the divine attributes as represented in the Zohar. For 
we must not forget that all the Sefiroth are divided into three 
categories which, in their totality, also form a general and 
indivisible trinity. The first three bear a purely intellectual 
character, those following bear a moral character, and the last 
relate to God as beheld in nature. 

3. In the same manner the generation of beings, or the 


50 Proclus, in the quoted work, liv. I, ch. XXIII. 

51 Plotinus, Ennead., VI, liv. VIII, 16; Enn., IV, liv. III, 17, et 
passim. Proclus, Theol, L A Aijhov ovv bu TeLadixdy got, tO 
THC Logiac yéevoc. TiMiges Lev ovv tov dvtog xai tis GAndelac, yev- 
Vireo dé Tis VOEQas ddntetas. 

52 The vovtc¢ in its trinity may also be represented as ovo.wdds, 
Cotx@s and vonoedc. —Jellinek 

58 Proclus, Theol. secund. Plato, liv. VI, ch. VII, VIII et sequ. 

54 TYjc Smmovoyixtic teid.bog Ehaye TV iumdotétny taEL Zev. 
‘O TlocedGv cuprAnoot ta ie tis Sywoveyixijis, xal padAtota tov 
yyxov Sidxoouov xuBeovad. 1. c., liv. VI, ch. XXII et seq. 


236 CELE Se RAR 7A ole eer 


manifestation of God’s attributes, is shown by the two systems 
we are comparing. As we have said before, the doctrine of 
Plotinus and Proclus teaches that the intelligence is the very 
essence of the being, and that the being and the intelligence are 
absolutely identical in the bosom of unity. It therefore follows 
that all existences of which the world is composed, and all the 
aspects under which we may consider them, are but the develop- 
ment of the absolute thought, or a kind of a creative dialectic 
which produces simultaneously light, reality and life®® For 
nothing ever separates itself absolutely from the principle or from 
the highest unity which is always immutable and self-resembling. 
It includes all the beings and all the forces which we distinguish 
in the world. 

In the lower degrees, finally, the multiplicity and number 
extends infinitely ;°® but the intelligible essence of things gradually 
weakens at the same time, until it sinks to a mere negation. In 
this state it becomes matter, which is called by Porphyrius®* “‘the 
absence of all existence” (E€\Aei1s wavtds tov Svtos), or true 
No-Thing (dArybwodv wh 6v —Non-Ens), and more poetically 
represented by Plotinus as the image of shadows which limit our 
knowledge, and which are given an intelligible form by our soul’s 
reflection therein.5® Let us recall two remarkable passages in the 
Zohar where thought, united at first with the being in perfect 
identity, successively produces all creatures and all divine attributes 
by continually causing its self-consciousness to change and become 
more distinct. The elements themselves—I mean the material 


55 “Anaoa uovig trootioe wiidos univ Os Eautiis Sevtegov yev- 
vou xal ueoitiuevey tas év atti xevgims neoinagxyovousg Svvauetc. 
Lc, liv. TTT) ch? 1. 

"Exedy yao ad tOv vontOv wévto moderor tH SvtTa, “var” aitiav éxei 
néevTa mooimioxer. Liv. V, ch. XXX. 

56 *Hoav uéy odv nol év ti) rOmTy wovads Suvduerc, GAG vontas 
xoal év ty Sevtéog modcodo1 xal Gxoyevynoets, GAAG vonTM> nal voeod>” 
heh toity ravdyjuos 6 derduds Grov gavidv éxqyvac. I. c, liv. IV, ch. 

57 Sentent. ad intelligib., Roman edition, ch. XXII. 

58 Plotinus, Enn. IV, liv. III, ch. [X.—Enn., liv. VIII, ch. VIL— 
Enn. II, liv. III, ch. IV. 


SHE es Ko ABBA EA A 234 


elements and the different conditions which we observe in space— 
are among the things which it eternally produces from its own 
bosom. (See Part II, near end.) All the metaphors, therefore, 
which represent the supreme principle of things as a source of 
light which emanates, inexhaustibly and eternally, rays of light 
that reveal its presence in all conditions of infinity, are not always 
to be taken literally, whether met with in the Hebrew or in the 
Alexandrian doctrine. Light, says Proclus expressly, (Theol. 
Secund. Plato, liv. II, ch. 4) is here nothing else but the intelli- 
gence or the participation of divine intelligence (otSév Aho éott 
TO PMG 7H pEtoLota tis Osias trag§ews). The inexhaustible 
source from which it flows unceasingly, is the absolute unity 
which unites in its bosom the being and the thought.®°® It would 
be useless to repeat here, for the sake of the Neoplatonic school, 
all we have said in the analysis of the Zohar about the human 
soul and its union with God through faith and love. All mystic 
systems necessarily agree on this point; for it may be regarded 
as the basis, the very foundation of mysticism. We shall now 
choose this hasty parallel by asking whether it is really possible 
to explain such deep and continuous resemblances in a train of 
thought, which is hardly accessible to most intelligences, by the 
identity of human faculties, or by the general laws of thought? 
On the other hand, we believe to have sufficiently demonstrated 
that the teachers of Palestine could not have drawn from the 
Greek civilization, a civilization so accursed and so anathematized 
by them, a science of greater importance even than the study of 
the Law. With due respect to the critic, we can not even admit 
that the Greek philosophers could have made profitable use of 
the Jewish tradition. For, while Numenius and Longinus speak 
of Moses; while the author of the “Egyptian Mysteries,’’® 


59 Kai h ovoia xal 6 votc and tov dyatot motos tytotava Aé- 
yeto, xol megi td dyatdv tiv tragtw éxew, xal winoototo tod tic 
dAntelac pwtic éxcitev agoidvtos... xal 6 votcs dea Beds Sia 1d Mids 
tH VOEQOV Kai TO VoETOV xal advTOD TOD vov meeofitegov. I. c., liv. II, 
ch. IV. 

0 De Mysteriis Egypt., sect. II, ch. XI. 


238 Hea Bebo A wee ert 


whoever he may have been, admits angels and archangels into 
his theological system, it is probably because of the version of the 
Septuagint, or because of the relations that exist between these 
three philosophers and the Hellenistic Jews of Egypt. It would 
be absurd to draw the conclusion that they were initiated in the 
formidable mysteries of the Merkaba. 

We are, therefore, to inquire yet whether there exists an 
older doctrine from which, unknown to each other, both the 
Kabbalistic system as well as the so-called Alexandrian Platonism, 
sprang. ‘There is no need of leaving the capital of the Ptolemies 
for this purpose; for right in the bosom of the Jewish nation we 
find a man who may be judged in different ways, it is true, but 
who always enjoys splendid fame.*4 A man, who is generally 
looked upon by the historians of philosophy as the true founder 
of the Alexandrian school, while by some critics and by most of 
the modern historians of Judaism he is considered the inventor 
of Hebrew Mysticism. ‘This man is—Philo. It is, then, his 
system, as far as there may be one, that we shall now make the 
object of our investigation, and endeavor to discover in his 
opinions and in his numerous writings the first traces of the 
Kabbalah. I say “Kabbalah” only, for the relations of Philo to 
the Pagan philosophical schools which have been founded after 
him, will become apparent of themselves. Besides, no matter how 
worthy of interest the origin of this philosophy may be im the 
present work, it need but be of secondary consideration. 


61 I find it quite natural for the author to disregard the hyper- 
criticism of Kirschbaum who, in his book on Jewish Alexandrianism, 
regards all the works of Philo as spurious.—Jellinek 


CHAPTER III 


RELATION OF THE KABBALAH TO THE 
DOCTRINE OF PHILO 


Without repeating what has been said before of the relative 
isolation of the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt, we may add 
that Philo’s name is never mentioned by the Jewish writers of 
the Middle Ages. Neither Saadiat nor Maimonides,? neither 
their later disciples nor the modern Kabbalists, have dedicated 
any monument to him, and even now he is barely known among 
those of his coreligionists who are strangers to the Greek litera- 
ture.2 We shall not linger, though, upon these external facts, 
the importance of which we do not wish to exaggerate. As we 
have hinted before, we shall look for the solution of our problem 
in our philosopher’s own opinions, which have been made clear 
by the labors of modern criticism.* 


1 Saadia ben Joseph. Head of the academy of Sura; born 892, 
died 942.—Transl. 

2 Moses ben Maimon (Rambam). ‘Talmudist, astronomer, physician 
and philosopher. Born 1135, died 1204.—Transl. 

3 Joseph Flesch of Moravia has lately undertaken the translation 
of Philo’s works into Hebrew; the translation of de Vita Mosis, 
("wp Nn), de Decalogo as well as the treatise on the Essenes and 
the Therapeutae in the manuscript: quod omnis probus liber, have been 
printed. The death of the translator has cut short the undertaking.— 
Jellinek : 

4 Gefroerer, Critical History of Primitive Christianity. Daehne, 
Historic Exposition of the Religious School of the Alexandrian Jews, 
Halle, 1834. Grossman, Questiones Philonae, Leipzig, 1829. Creuzer, 
in the “Theological Studies and Criticism,” year 1832, first issue.* 

* The following may be added: Scheffer, Questiones Philonianae, 
.Marburg, 1829. Meier, Judaica, seu veter. scriptor. profanorum de 
rebus judaicis fragmenta, Jena, 1832.—Jellinek 


239 


240 HICSS KAS BEB eA tieeai 


There is nothing in the writings of Philo that can possibly 
be called a system. Incongruous opinions in disorderly juxtaposi- 
tion—I refer to the symbolic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures 
—serve a most arbitrary method. All the elements of this chaos 
which are held together by one common bond—the innate desire 
of the author to demonstrate in the Hebrew writings the presence 
of the highest and purest in the wisdom of other nations—may 
be divided into two big classes. “The elements of one class have 
been borrowed from the philosophic systems of Greece, systems 
which are not irreconcilable with the fundamental principles of 
any moral or religious teaching, like that of Pythagoras, Aristotle 
and Zeno;® but above all that of Plato, whose language and ideas 
make up the first sketch, so to speak, in all the writings of the 
Hebrew philosopher. The elements of the other class visibly 
betray, by the contempt they instill for reason and science, by the 
impatience with which they precipitate in some manner the human 
soul into the bosom of the infinite, their foreign origin, and can 
come only from the Orient. This dualism of the Philonic ideas 
is of the greatest importance, not only for the problem we are 
to solve, but for the history of philosophy in general; and we 
shall first of all endeavor to determine it definitely, at least, on 
the points most salient and most worthy of our interest. 

When speaking of the creation and of the first principles of 
beings, of God and of His relations to the universe, Philo has 
evidently two doctrines in mind, doctrines that can never be 
brought in accord by any effort of logic. One doctrine is simply 
the dualism of Plato as taught in Timaeus; the other reminds us 
at once of Plotinus and the Kabbalah. We shall take up the 
frst doctrine which, singularly, is placed in the mouth of Moses: 
“The legislator of the Hebrews,” says our author in his ‘Treatise 


5 Compare Creuzer’s article, Theological Studies and Criticism, 
1832, first issue, p. 18ff. Ritter, article Philo. vol. IV of Tissot’s trans- 
lation. 


i Heb SK AvBiB ACL A’ H 241 


on the Creation,® “recognized two equally necessary principles, 
one active and the other passive. ‘The first is the highest and 
absolute Intelligence which is above virtue, above knowledge, 
above the good and the beautiful itself; the second is the inert 
and inanimate matter which became perfect by receiving motion, 
form and life from Intelligence.” 

To avoid taking the last principle as a pure abstraction, 
Philo takes care to repeat in another work’ the famous maxim 
of Pagan antiquity, that there is neither absolute beginning nor 
absolute annihilation, but that the same elements pass from one 
form to another. ‘These elements are earth, water, air and fire. 
We are taught that, in order to make the world a work fully 
accomplished and worthy of the supreme architect, God left no 
particle outside of the world.? But before giving form to matter 
and existence to this sensual universe, God visualized in His 
thought the intelligible universe or the prototypes, the incor- 
ruptible ideas of things.® Divine kindness, which is the only 
cause of the formation of the world,?° explains also why the 
world should not perish. God can not, without discontinuing 
His goodness, wish to replace order and general harmony by 
chaos; and to imagine a better world which is some day to replace 
‘ours, is to accuse God of having failed in His goodness towards 


6 De mundi opificio, I, 4 We have already quoted this passage 
in the introduction. 

7 De incorrupt. mund. *Qoneg éx% tod wh dvtos oddéev yivetor, odd’ 
eis TO Ly Ov Mdeigeta. "Ex tod yao ovdany Svtos Gunxavov gotl ye- 
VEOVOL Tl, %. TA. 

8 Televotatov yoo Nouotte tO péyiotov tHv Eoywv tH pEyiotw 
Syuovey S:orddoacta. Terevdtatov 5& otn &v tv et wh tedeloig ovv- 
exAnoovto pégeow, Wote & yiis Gudons xal navtdc tdatoc xal déoo0c 
wal mvodc, undevdc EM xatadngdévtos, ovvéotn bSe 6 xdon0c. (De 
plantat Noe, II, init.) 

9 TlooAaBav yao 6 Osdc, btu pinnua xardov ovx Gv mote yévoItO 
xaAov Stya maoadelyuatocs, x.t. 4. (De mundi opific.) 

10 Ei yao tic édednoete tHv oitiav, hc évexo the TO nav s5ywW- 
‘ovoyeito, Steoevvaotar, Soxet por ur Stauaoteiv tod oxonod, pduevoc, 
xol tOv Goxalwv elxé tic. Following this are even the expressions of 
Timaeus. Ib. supra. 


242 PAH Se KoAC Reb rAs tae) 


the present order of things.1! According to this system the 
generation of beings, or the application of the power which 
formed the universe, must have necessarily commenced, but it 
can not continue to act endlessly; for God can not destroy the 
already formed world by producing another ; matter can not return 
to general chaos. Moreover, God is not the immanent cause of 
the beings, neither is He the creative cause in the modern theo- 
logical sense. He is only the Supreme Architect, the Demiurge, 
and this is really the term Philo makes use of when he is under 
the influence of the Greek philosophy.1* Finally, God is 
not only above, but completely apart from the creation 
(6 émpeBynds tH xdoupm xal EEm tod dyutoveyyniévtos dv) 
(De Posteritate Caini); for, possessing infinite knowledge and 
felicity, He can have no relation to a formless and unclean 
substance as matter is.!8 

Let us now try to harmonize these principles with the follow- 
ing doctrines: God never rests in His works, but it is His nature 
always to produce, just as it is the nature of fire to burn, and 
that of snow to diffuse cold.4# Rest, as applied to God, does 
not mean inactivity; for the active cause of the universe can 
never cease to produce the most beautiful works. But we say 
that God rests, because His endless activity works spontaneously 
(ueta MoAAT|s etuaostas), without pain and without fatigue. 
It is also absurd to take literally the words of the Scriptures 
which tell us that the world was created in six days. Far from 
lasting but six days, creation did not even commence in time. 


11 Quod mund. sit incorrupt., 949, 950. 

12 Tedevotatovy yae Nouotte to weyiotov tv EQywv tH pEyloto 
Snuovoy@ siorrAdoactou. (De planat. Noe, init.) 

13 De Sacrificantibus, ed. Mangey, vol. II, p. 261. 

14 TIovetou ovdénote mordv 6 Oedc, GAM Goneo tdvov td wale m- 
Qd¢ xal xLdvoc tH yiyewv, otto xal @eot td morsiv. Legis Alleg., I, ed. 
Mangey, vol. I, p. 44. 

15 ’Avorovhav 5& od thv anoakiav xold, éxeiSav qioer SeacmH- 
QLov tO tHV Siwv oitiov obdSénot|e toxov tov moistv ta “GAMOTA, GAA 
THY dvev xoxonatelav peta mMOMATCc evpageiac dxovotétmy evégyetiay. 
De Cherubin, p. 123. 


THE KABBALAH 243 


For, according to Plato, time itself was created with other things, 
and is but a fleeting image of eternity.1® Divine action, as was 
said before, does not only give form to inert matter, and causes 
the departure of all the elements necessary for the formation 
of the world from disorder and darkness, but it becomes really 
creative and absolute; it is limited neither in space nor in time. 

“In giving rise to things,” says Philo expressly, “God did 
not only make them visible, but He produced what did not exist 
before. He is not only the architect (the Demiurge) of the 
universe, He is also its creator.”17 He is the principle of all 
action in each particular being, as well as in the totality of things, 
for to Him alone belongs activity; passivity is in the nature of 
all things engendered.1® It is probably because of this that 
everything is filled with and penetrated by His presence; and it 
is also because of this that He does not permit anything to stay 
void of and abandoned by Him.!® But as there is nothing that 
can embrace the Infinite, He is, therefore, nowhere and everywhere 
at the same time, an antithesis which we heard already from the 
mouth of Porphyrius, and which was understood in the same 
sense as it was later understood by the disciples of Plotinus. God 
is nowhere because, place and space were created with the bodies, 
and we can not therefore say that the creator is confined in the 
creature. He is everywhere because He penetrates simultanously, 
by His various potencies (tag dvvduets attov), earth and water, 


16 Kindes xévy tO oleodor €E Hugoqais, i xaddrAov yodvm xdcpov 
yeyoveuot. Leg. Alleg. Ib. supr. Ovtds otv (6 xdcMog) 6 vew@tEQos vids 
6 aiodytds, xvynteic, thv xodvov qiow avahdupo xal avacyetv énoi- 
noev. Quod Deus sit immutabilis. Anuroveydos Sé xal xodvov Oedc. 

17 ‘O Oedc tH méVTA yevioas, od UOVOV Eic tODUMaVEs HYayEV, GA- 
Ac xol & mOdtEQOV Ovx Hv Exoinoev, ov Synutoveyds wdvov, GAAG xal xtI- 
otn¢g ovtds &v. De Somniis, p. 577. . Shak 

18 @gdc nal toicg diddrois Graow doxh tod Seav goti. “ISuov pév 
@cot tO xoteiv, 5 od O€urc Emryedpaoctor yevvynt®, tdrov bv yevvytod 
TO MOOYELV. 

Legis, Alleg., I; De Cherubin, vol. I, p. 153, ed. Mangey. 

19 [Idvta yao mexAnowxev 6 Osdc, xat Sia navtov SrednAviev, xai 

vevov ovdév, ovSé Eqnuov axohéAowtev Eautov. Genes., III, 8. 


244 OH RACH eb ea ala 


air and heaven.2° He fills the least particle of the universe, 
uniting each other by invisible bonds.?? 

But this is not enough. God Himself is the place of the 
universe (6 tv SAwv tém0¢), for He embraces all things, He 
is the shelter of the universe and His own seat, the place wherein 
He confines Himself and where He contains Himself.22 When 
Malebranche (French philos. 1638-1715.—Trans.), who saw in 
God the place of spirits only, appears to us so close to Spinoza, 
what are we to think of one who represents the Supreme Being 
as the place of all the existences, of the spirits as well as of the 
bodies? But we must also ask what becomes of this idea of the 
passive principle of the universe? How are we to conceive as a 
real and necessary being that matter which has neither form nor 
activity in itself, which must have existed, and which, together 
with space, was transported into the bosom of God? And Philo 
is really driven by an irresistible inclination to pronounce the 
great words: God is All (els xol 1d nav atrds got). (Legis. 
Alleg., I, 1.) 

But how did the Supreme Being cause to spring forth from 
this intelligible place, which is His own substance, an actual space 
containing this material and sensual world? How did He, Who 
is all activity and all intelligence, produce passive and inactive 
beings? ‘The mementos of Greek philosophy are here entirely 
stifled by the language and the ideas of the Orient. God is the 
purest light, the prototype and source of all light. He sheds 
around Him innumerable rays of light, all intelligibles, which no 


20 We should expect to see mentioned here “Fire” as the fourth 
element. But as Philo considered the heavens as the purest fire, “heaven” 
is put instead. See de Linguar. confus., p. 342: 6 aibje (6 oveavis 
was called before) tegov mtg pAdE éotiw x.t.4.—Compare Daehne, 
Historical Representation of the Jewish-Alexandrian Religious Phil- 
osophy, part I, p. 190.—Jellinek 

21 De linguarum Confusione, ed. Mangey, vol. I, p. 425. 

22 Avtoc & Osdc xodreitar ténoc, TH neguéyew piv ta dda, megré- 
yeovo 6& 10d undevig GrhOc, xal TH xataMuysiv TOV ovprdvtIwv ato 
elvor, xol éxevdyineg adtos éotl yHou savtod, xexmonxms Eavtds xal 
euegduevos ptvow EautH. De Somniis, lib. I. 


THE KABBALAH 245 


creature can behold ;?° but His image is reflected in His thought 
(in His logos), and it is by this image alone that we can compre- 
hend Him.** Here we see already a first manifestation, or, as is 
generally said, a first emanation of divine nature. For, when 
the Platonic reminiscence of Philo make way to other influences, 
the divine word becomes with him a real being, a person or a 
hypostasis, as it was later said in the Alexandrian school. Of 
such nature is the archangel who commands all celestial armies.2° 

But our philosopher does not stop at this point. From this 
first logos, ordinarily called “the most ancient” (6 noeoPitatos), 
the firstborn of God, which represents in the absolute sphere 
the “Thought” (Adyos évitctetos), there emanates another 
which represents the “Word” (Adyos xooqopixds), that is to say, 
the creative power, the manifestation of which is the world. 
When we read in Genesis that a river went forth from Eden to 
water the garden, it means that the generic goodness is an 
emanation of the Divine Wisdom which is the Word of God.*® 
The author of this universe should be called both the architect 
as well as the father of His work. Supreme Wisdom we shall 
call the mother. It is with Supreme Wisdom that God united 
in a mysterious manner to make the generation of things operative. 
Impregnated with the divine germ, Supreme Wisdom gave birth, 
in pain and at the appointed time, the only well-beloved son 
whom we call the world. It is for this reason that a sacred 
writer presents to us Wisdom as speaking of itself in the following 
manner: “Of all the works of God I was the first to be formed; 
time was not yet when I already existed. For everything that is 


23 Aitoc 88 Sv doxétumos abyn, uvetacg axtivacs éxBddAder, Ov ov- 
Sepia gotiv aiodyty, vontal 5& xai draom. Hao’ 6 xat wdvov 6 vontds 
Bedc attaic yofta, tHv 5& yevéoews peworgautvwv ovdsic. De Cheru- 
bin., vol. I, p. 156. ed. Mang. 

24 Koddnco thy avoyjvov atyiv Os Hduov, of un Svvdpevor tov H- 
Auov avtov ideiv doHo1, ottws “ol tHv tot Geod eixdva, tov dyyehov 
avtot Adyov, &> at’tdv xatavotow. De Somniis. 

25 'O mowtdéyovoc Adéyos, 6 tyyehos noecBUtTatos, doxdyyehos. 
De Confusione linguarum, p. 341. : 

26 TIotauds gnow (Moons) éunogetdeta @& "Edeu tod xotiverw 


246 AP AH SE Sew ASD By Ast Aah 


engendered must naturally be younger than the mother and the 
nurse of the universe.’’?? 

There is a passage in Timaeus where we meet with nearly 
the same language, but with the vast difference that the mother 
and nurse of all things is a principle entirely apart from God; 
it is the inert and formless matter.28 ‘The quoted passages remind 
us more of the ideas and the usual expressions of the Zohar. 
There, too, God is called the eternal light; there, too, the 
generation of things is metaphorically explained by the gradual 
darkening of the rays emanating from the divine center, and by 
the union of God with Himself in His diverse attributes. Spring- 
ing from the bosom of God to give life to the universe, Supreme 
Wisdom is also represented by the river which went forth from 
the earthly paradise. The two logi, finally, remind us of the 
Kabbalistic principle that the world is nothing but the word of 
God; that His word or His voice is His thought become visible, 
and that His thought, finally, is Himself. Another picture, often 
drawn in the principal work of the Kabbalah, shows us the 
universe as a cloak or garment of God. Now then, we have here 
the same in the following words of Philo: “The Supreme Being 
is surrounded by a dazzling light which envelops Him like a rich 
cloak, and the most ancient word covers itself with the world 
as with a garment.” 

Two ways of speaking of God result also from this twofold 
theory on the nature and birth of things in general when 
tov wagdderoov. Totapocg  yevixy eotiv dyaddtys. atti éxnogedetou 
Ex Tig TOV Oeod oopias, H Sé Eotiv 6 Oeod Adyos. Leg. Alleg., I. I. 

27 Tov yotv tode tO adv éoyaoduevov Synutoveyov épnod xal ma- 
tégo. elvar tot yeyovdtog evddc év Sixn qhoouev’ pytéoa 88 thw tov 
NEMOUNXOTOS EMLOTHUNV TN ovvOv 6 Oedc, x. tT. A. De Temulentid. 

28 Koi 87 xal nooceixdoo xoémer 1) pév Sexduevov pytol, td 8’ 
ddev matel, thv b& petaEd todtmv qiow éxyovw. Timaeus, ed. Stall- 
baum, p. 212. 

29 Aéyo 8& tO Nyevovixdv quot atyorSei xeorkdunetor, oo GEL6- 


XQEWS évivoaota ta iwatia vontodivou évdvetor Sé 6 wév moeoPitatos 
~ > ~ 4 , . 
TOU OvtOS AdYos Wc éobyita tov xdopov. De Praefugis. 


Seago yb Ae AH. 247 


He is considered for Himself, in His proper essence and 
independent of the creation. Sometime He is the supreme 
reason of things, the active and efficient cause of the uni- 
verse (6 vols, 1d Soactiovov altiov), the most general idea 
(tO yevixotatov), (Legis. Alleg., II) the intelligible nature 
(vont qvots). To Him alone belongs liberty, knowledge, joy, 
peace and happiness, in short—perfection.2° Sometime He is 
represented higher even than perfection and all possible attributes. 
Nothing can give us an idea of Him; neither virtue nor knowledge, 
neither beauty nor goodness,*! not even unity. For what we call 
unity is but an image of the first cause (yovas pév gotiv elxdv 
aitiov modtov),22 33 All we know of Him is that He exists; 
to us He is the ineffable and nameless being.®4 

We easily recognize in the first case the influence of Plato, 
of the metaphysics of Aristotle, and even of the physiology of the 
stoics; in the second case there is an entirely different order of 
ideas. Here, the Neoplatonic unity and the Ayn Sof of the 
Kabbalah, the “Mystery of Mysteries,” the “Unknown of the 
Unknown” which dominates both, the Sefiroth and the world, 
are Clearly visible. ‘This applies also necessarily to all that Philo, 
because of his religious belief or because of his philosophic views, 
presents to us as an intermediary between the things created and 
the purest essence of God; we refer to the angels, the Word, and 
in general to what Philo designates under the somewhat vague 
name of “Divine Powers (8vvdueis tod Oeot).” When the 


30 'O Osdc H udvy ehevdgoa mvotc De Somniis, II.—Movoc 6 Oedc 
awpevdHc éootdater, xal yao pdvoc yiter, xai pdvos evq~oaiveta, xat 
LOV® THV Guyt moAguov ovpPEBynxev clenvnv yew, x. t. 4. De Cherub., 
vol. I, p. 154, ed. Mangey. 

81 De Mundi opific., loc. laud. Keeittwv 7 émotiun, xoeittwv A 
GOETH, x A.A. 

82 De Specialibus legibus, 1. II, vol. II, p. 329, ed. Mangey. 

83 I can not see why the author insists upon “Supreme Being 
(Souverain Etre)” instead of “First Cauise” as translated by Dr. Jellinek 
whose translation is the correct one.—Transl. 

34 'O Soa ovS8 TH VO xatadlnrtds St wh xatd td elvar udvov, B- 
magtic yao éotiv 6 xatakapBévonev aitod... Wh avev yaouxTtioos 
fixnagEtc, dxatavéucotos xal Geontos. Quod mundus sit immutabilis. 


248 [Hab Sh vASB Baas Ae 


Greek dualism is taken seriously, when the intelligent principle 
acts directly upon matter, and God is conceived as the Demiurge 
of the world, then the Word or the Logos is the divine idea, the 
seat of all ideas after which all things have been patterned. ‘The 
forces and the messengers of God, that is, the angels of every 
degree of the celestial hierarchy, are the ideas themselves. 

This viewpoint is expressed already in the following short 
fragments: “If we are to speak prosaically, then the intelligible 
world is nothing but the thought of God while He prepared 
Himself to create the world, just as an architect who has the ideal 
city in his mind before constructing the real city according to this 
plan. Now, just as this ideal city occupies no space, and is but 
a picture in the mind of the architect, so can the intelligible 
world be nowhere but in the divine thought where the plan for 
the material universe was conceived. ‘There is no other place 
capable of receiving and embracing even a single one of these 
unadulterated forces, much less all the forces of the supreme 
intelligence.”85 ‘These are the forces which have formed the 
immaterial and intelligible world, the prototype of the visible and 
the corporeal world.’°® In another place?” we are told that the 
divine forces and the ideas are one and the same; that their task 
is to give the appropriate form to each object. In the same 
manner, nearly, the angels are referred to. They represent 
different particular forms of the everlasting reason or of virtue, 
and inhabit the divine space, that is to say, the intelligible world.28 





85 Ki b€ tig edednoere yupvotégoic yorvjoacda toic dvéuaow, ovdév 
dv EtEeoov eto, Tov vontov elvan xdopo¢g 7 Qeod Adyos 75n xoowomorodv- 
tog ovdé yao N vontyn wdAtc, EteQdv tw Eotiv H 6 tov GoxXLTExTOVOS Ao- 
yionds 7dy tiv aiodntiv sdhw tH vonti xtitew Siavoovpévov. De 
Mund. opific., vol. I, p. 4, ed. Mangey. 

36 Aud tovtmv tHv Suvdpewv 6 Gompatog xal vontos éexdyn xb- 
Ouos, tO TOU Maivopévoy tovtov dexétumov, tSéais Goedtog svota- 
teic, QOWEQ OVTOS GMuaoW 6eatoic. De Linguarum confusione. 

Taig dowpdtots Suvdueow, Ov Etuwov Svowa at idéar, xataxor- 
OUTO MEdG TO yévos Exaotov doudtTOVoUV AaPetv LoE*ry. De Sacri- 
ficantibus. vol. II, p. 261, ed. Mangey. 

38 Hidevor &€ viv mooonxer, St. 6 Osiog téx0¢ nal H icod Yoou mAH- 
ONS dompatov idyav.—De Somniis, I, 21. Adyou otc xaretv E0og &yyedor. 


ESHER KA BB AYE ACH 249 


The power upon which they depend directly, or the archangel, 
is, as we already know, the logos itself. But this nature of things 
and these roles are entirely changed when, according to the con- 
ception of the author, God appears as the immanent cause and the 
true place of all beings. In this case we are not dealing any 
longer with the simple imprint of different forms upon matter 
that does not exist of its own essence; but, without losing anything 
of their intelligible value, all ideas become, in addition, substantial 
realities, active forces subordinated one to another, and yet bound 
in one substance, in one force, in one single intelligence. 
Wisdom or the Word thus becomes the first of all the heavenly 
forces, a distinct power, but not separated from the absolute 
being,®?? the spring that waters and vivifies the earth, the cup- 
bearer of the Most High who pours out the nectar of the souls, 
and Who is itself this nectar ;*° the firstborn of God and the mother 
of all the beings (vidg mowtdyovos) #4 It is also called the 
divine man (Gvtowsaos Oeot), for the image in which the earthly 
man was created on the sixth day, and which the Holy Scriptures 
call the image of God, is nothing but the everlasting Word.4? It 
is the high priest of the universe (doytegets tov xdcopov), that 
is to say, the conciliator between the finite and the infinite. It 
‘may be regarded as a second God without impairing the belief in 
one God.42 The Scriptures have it in mind when titles and a 


Scot yao Geod Adyou, tooatta aoetiis env te xal eldy. De Posteritatae 
Caini. 

39 ‘H oogia tot Oeot got, Av dxoav xal mewtlotyy Etepev ard 
tav Eavtot buveuewv. —Leg. Alleg., II. 

40 Xdéteior S& doneg axd mnyi\s, tis csopiacs, notanot tedmov, 6 
@ciog Adyos... TANEH tig oopiag vduatog tov Oetov Adyov... oivo- 
x4605 TOV Geod xai ovumooiagyos, ob Siap~eQuv Tov MmpaAtOC. —De 
Somniis, II. 

41 Ajo yéo, > fomev, teod Ocod, Ev uév Se 6 xdou0c, év & xal 
doxieosvs 6 meMtéyovos avtot Osiog AOyos. —De Somniis, I, col. I, 
p. 653, ed. Mangey. Q ey : | 

42 Kol doy) xal vona Oeod xal xar’ eixdva Avdgunos, x. t. W—De 
* Confusione linguarum, vol. I, p. 407, ed. cit. A 

43 Oitoc yoo Tudv tOv ated@v Gv ein Oedc, x. t. A.—Leg. Alleg., 
III, vol. I, p. 128, ed. cit. 


250 THE KABBADAH 


name are sometimes bestowed upon God; for the first rank 
belongs to the ineffable being.** Philo’s assertion that the Word 
reveals itself sometimes to a man in a material form fully con- 
vinces us that these expressions refer to a real personification. 
It is the Word that the patriarch Jacob saw in a dream, and 
it is the Word again that spoke to Moses in the burning bush. 
(Ib. supra.) 

We have already seen how this Supreme Word engenders 
another which springs from its bosom by way of emanation, like 
a river gushing from its source. ‘This second word is the goodness, 
the creative virtue (Svvayts xotntixy), a hypostatized Platonic 
idea. Below the goodness is the royal power (% Baothixn) 
which governs with justice all created beings.45 These three 
forces, the two last ones of which, when confined in their action te 
man only, are called “Mercy” and “Judgment” (4 thews xal 
vowovetixN), revealed themselves once upon the earth under the 
disguise of the three angels who visited Abraham.*® ‘They make 
up the invisible good and the harmony of this world, just as they 
are, on the other hand, the glory, the presence of God, whence 
they descend by a gradual darkening of the infinite splendor; for 
each one of them is both shadow and light; shadow of that which 
is above, light and life of all that is below their own sphere.*? 

Their essence, finally, is just as impossible to comprehend as 
that of the primitive being, although their action is present every- 
where and their forms manifest themselves in the forms of the 
universe. It is just what God Himself had taught Moses when 
the latter implored Him, says Philo, to show him at least, His 
glory (tiv AdEav twitod), that is to say, the forces that surround 
His inaccessible throne (Soovmooovoas Suvducis), after asking 


44 De Somniis, I, vol. I, p. 656, ed. Mangey. 

45 De Profugis, vol.I,p. 560,ed Mangey. Ai & &Akou wévte ds Gv 
aor xiou, Suvduers eiol tod Agyovtoc, Sv KoxEr fh wointixy, %. T. AL 

46 De Vita Abraham (vol. II, p. 17, ed. Mangey.) 

47 “Qoneg yoo 6 Osds nagdderyna tis eixdvoc, Hv oxlav vuvi xé- 
xdynxev, ottas fH eixov GAkwv yivetor wagdderyua...oxia, cot 8 $ 
Adyos avtot gotiv. —Leg. Alleg., III. 


Nets tere Ke At Bebe Aci AnH. 251 


Him in vain to see Him face to face.48 The angels which we 
just saw described as ideas representing different kinds of virtue, 
are not only personified after the manner of poets and biblical 
writers, but they are also looked upon as souls floating in ether 
and sometimes uniting with souls inhabiting human _bodies.*® 
They form real and animated substances which impart life to 
all elements and to all parts of nature. Proof of it is the following 
passage which we shall translate: ‘“The beings designated by the 
philosophers of other nations as demons, are called by Moses 
angels. “These are the souls that float in the air, and no one 
must deny their existence; ior the universe must be animated in 
all its parts, and each element must be inhabited by living beings. 
The earth is thus stocked with animals, the sea and rivers with 
the inhabitants ot water, the fire with the salamander—supposed 
to be quite common in Macedonia—the heavens by the stars. In 
fact, if the stars were not pure and divine souls, they would not 
be endowed with circular motion which properly belongs to the 
spirit only. It follows, therefore, that the air must also be peopled 
by living beings, although our eyes can not see them.’° 

Philo’s syncretism shows itself most plainly, and the twofold 
direction to which he commits himself, notwithstanding his lively 
predilection for Oriental ideas, is most easily seen, when he comes 
to speak of man. ‘Thus, unlike Plato, he is not content with 
seeing the pale imprint of the eternal ideas in material things; 
but he even maintains that without the help of the senses we can 
never rise to higher cognition, that without the spectacle of the 
material world we can not even suspect the existence of an 
immaterial and invisible world.5!_ He then declares the influence 


48 Myz’ ovv end, prijte tiva tov éudv Bwvduewv xatd& tiv otolav 
éAnions xoté Svvjocoto xatadapeiv.—De Monarchi, I, vol. II, p. 218, 

49 De plantatione. De Monarchia, IJ. This union of the soul with 
another has been recognized by the Kabbalists under the name of 
“pregnancy (712°)).” 

50 De Gigantibus vol. I, p. 253, ed. Mangey. 

51 Tov éx tav iScOv ovotatévta xal vontov xdopnov obx Eveotiw Gi- 
hoc xatarapety Ste un éx tic tot alodytod xoi deouévov tovtov peta- 
vaBdoewmc, x T.A.—De Somniis, I, 


Boz THE KABBALAH 


of the senses to be absolutely harmful, and commands man to 
sever all connections with them and to take refuge within himself. 
He creates an abyss between the rational, intelligent soul, which 
alone is privileged to constitute man, and the sentient soul from 
which our organs borrow life as well as the knowledge appropriate 
to them. ‘This soul resides, as Moses said, in the blood,®* while 
the other is an emanation, an inseparable reflection of divine nature 
(axdonacua ob Satoetév, dxavyaoua Osias pioewe).5% 

This exaggerated viewpoint does not prevent him from 
retaining the Platonic opinion which recognizes in the human soul 
three elements: the thought, the will and the passions.°4 In 
innumerable places he insists upon the necessity of preparing for 
wisdom by what he calls “encyclical sciences” (&yxtxhiog moudeia, 
éyuimhia wodhata), that is to say, by oratory and those sciences 
which produce that outward culture so dear to the Greeks. Our 
mind, he says, must be fed with this mundane knowledge before 
it can aspire to higher science, just as our body must be fed with 
milk before it can bear more substantial food.5® Any one neglect- 
ing to acquire these must succumb in this world as Abel succumbed 
to the blows of his fratricidal brother. 

In another place he teaches entirely to the contrary: The 
word and the outward appearance is to be scorned, just as the 
body and the senses are to be scorned, that we may live in the 
intelligence and in the contemplation of the naked truth only. 
God’s command to Abraham to leave his country, his family and 
the house of his father, means that man must break away from 
his body, his senses and the word. For the body is but part of 
the earth where we are forced to live; the senses are the servants _ 


52 Aina ovola ~purxiic Eotl, ovyl tis voeotic mal Loyixiis, GAG tH 
alotntixis, xad’ Nv hiv te xal toig GAdyous xowvdv 10 Civ ovunBéByxev. 
De Concupiscentia, vol. II, p. 356, ed. Mangey. 

53 Quod deterior potiori insidiari soleat, vol. I, p. 208, ed cit. 

54 *Kotiv hud ti wuyt toweens, nal Byer wéeog 1d psy Aoyixdy, 
xt. A.—Leg. Alleg., T. De Confusione linguarum. De Concupiscentia, 
vol. II, p. 350, ed. cit. 

55 De Congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia. 


erates Keeway Ag acs EL 2a 


and the brothers of the thought; and the word, finally, is but 
the cover and, in some measure, the dwelling place of the 
intelligence which is our real father. (De Somniis, L, 1.) 

The same thought is symbolically reproduced in a more 
expressive manner by Hagar and Ishmael. This rebellious servant 
and her son, who were so ignominiously driven from the house 
of their master, represent the encyclical knowledge and the 
sophism it begets. It is hardly necessary to add that any one 
aspiring to a higher level of the spiritual world must imitate the 
Hebrew patriarch.5® But does the soul, when fully retired in 
the intelligence, find there, at least, self-satisfaction and the means 
of arriving through its own efforts to truth and wisdom? Had 
Philo answered this question in the affirmative, he would noi 
have gone beyond the doctrine of Plato. For in Plato’s estimation 
‘only he is truly wise who entirely renounces body and senses, and 
labors hard all his life to learn how to die. (Phedon, ad init.) 
But our Alexandrian philosopher oversteps this boundary; for, 
besides the knowledge borrowed from reason, besides the enlighten- 
ment given by philosophy, he is also in need of enlightenment and 
of higher knowledge, emanating directly from God, and given to 
intelligence as a favor, a mysterious gift. 

When we read in the Scriptures, he says, that God spoke to 
man, we are not to believe that a material voice verberated the 
air, but that the human soul had been illumined by the purest 
light. In this manner only can the divine word address itself to 
man. Again, when the Law was promulgated on the Mount 
Sinai, it is not said that a voice was heard, but, according to the 
text, a voice was seen by all the people assembled. “You have 
seen,” says Jehovah, “that I spoke to you from heaven above.”®? 
Since a miracle is explained it can not refer here to rational 
knowledge or to a mere contemplation of ideas but to a revelation 


56 De Cherub. De Congressu quaerendae erudit. gratia. 

5T Tobe tod Beod Adyous of yonouol Pwrds TOdmov SQMmEVOUS pE- 
viovor, Agyetar yao St. nas 6 Lads EHO THY POY, ovx TxovCEV x. T. A. 
De Migrat. Abraham. 


254 AH Ne Ae eke Deed 


mystically understood. We shall give the same meaning to 
another passage where the possibility of grasping God Himself 
through direct manifestation (dx’ avtov attov xatodauBave) 
is admitted, instead of rising to Him by the contemplation of His 
works. In this state, adds our author, we understand at a glance 
the essence of God, His word and the universe.°® He recognizes 
Faith (mlotis), which he calls “the queen of virtues” (% tv 
Goetav Baotii¢), as the most perfect of all goodness, the cement 
that unites us with divine nature.59 It is Faith that is repre- 
sented in the story of Judah and Tamar; for as he united himself 
with her without lifting the veil that covered her face, so does 
Faith unite us with God. 

Philo shows the same hesitation when speaking of human 
liberty as when explaining the nature and origin of our knowledge. 
At times the Stoic doctrine that man is free triumphs; the laws of 
necessity which govern without exception all other creatures, do 
not exist for man. ‘This free choice, then, which is his privilege, 
imposes upon him at the same time the responsibility for his 
actions; only thus is man alone among all other beings capable of 
virtue, and hereby alone are we justified in saying that God, in 
His desire to manifest Himself in the universe through the idea 
of goodness, found no more dignified a temple than the human 
soul.®° But it is easily seen that this theory, so true and wise, 
contradicts certain general principles previously expounded; as the 
unity of substance, the formation of beings by way of emanation, 
and even the Platonic dualism. 

Our philosopher has also no scruples in deserting this theory 
for opposite views, and it is readily noted that he finds himself 
there more at ease, and that he unfolds there much better the 


58... "ALN imequipacg td yevntév, Euqaow évagyi tod dyevhtou 
Lop2dver, O> ax avtot attiv xatarkauBdévew xal thv omdv adtod, neg 
HV tov Adyov nal tovde tov xdouov. Leg. Alleg., vol. II. 

59 De Migratione Abraham. Quis rerum divinarum haeres. 

60 De Nobilitate, vol. II, p. 437, ed. cit. Newv d&onoentotecorv éni 
Yijc ovx’ edge oyiouot xeeittw 6 yao vols dyakuatomoget td ayabdv 


Taree KeARB-B Ar AYH 255 


wealth of his half-oriental style and the resources of his natural 
genius. He takes there from man his free choice as well as his 
moral responsibility. The evil we attribute to ourselves as the 
one generally reigning in this world, is the inevitable fruit of 
matter,®! or the work of inferior forces which took part with 
the divine logos in the formation of man. The good, on the 
contrary, belongs to God alone. It is really because it does not 
suit the Supreme Being to participate in evil, that He called for 
subordinate workers to co-operate with Him in the creation of 
Adam, but all the good in our actions and in our thoughts must 
be attributed to Him alone.® 

According to this principle it is boastful and impious to 
consider oneself the author of any work; it means to compare 
oneself with God Who alone deposited in our soul the germ of 
good, and Who alone is qualified to impregnate it.6* This quality, 
without which we would be swallowed up by evil and blended 
with nothingness or matter, is called by Philo by its true name, 
it is the “Grace ( yaots).” “Grace,” he says, ‘is the heavenly 
virgin who serves as mediatress between God and the soul; 
between God who holds forth, and the soul which receives. The 
. entire written law is but a symbol of Grace.’® 

Along with this quite mysterious influence, Philo admits 
another influence which endangers no less the moral responsibility, 
and consequently, the free choice. It is the reversibility 
of good. ‘The righteous is the expiatory victim of the wicked, 
and it is for the sake of the righteous that God lavishes upon the 


61 De Opific. mund. Quis rerum divinarum heares. De Nominum 
mutatione. De Vita Mos., III. : 
62 De Mund. opific. op. 16, Paris ed. 1640. De Profugis, same ed., 
460. ; 
i 63 Leg. Alleg., I. De profugis. De Cherub. Gefroerer, work cited, 
vol. I, p. 401. 
64 "Qote ovpPodov elvan diadyxnv x&oitos* Tv peony Ednxev 3b 
Oed¢ Eautot TE doéyovtos xal aviQris0V AapBdvovtoc. “¥stegBodn 82 
evegyeciag Tovtd éoti, pr elvar Oeod xai yoxiic péoov, Str wh th maAQ- 
Hévov yGo1tTa.—De Nominum mutatione, p. 1052, quoted ed. 


256 TAH ESA be BAA 


wicked His inexhaustible treasures.°° This dogma, equally adopted 
by the Kabbalists and applied by them to the entire universe, is 
fundamentally a development of Grace. Grace alone brings about 
the merit of the righteous; why, then, can it not also come by the 
same channel to the wicked? As to that other obstacle to human 
liberty—the original sin—it would not be impossible to find its 
definition in some isolated words of our author.®® But in such an 
important subject we must expect more explicit and more definite 
proofs. We can positively state that Philo considered life itself 
as a state of forfeiture and of compulsion; consequently, the more 
man enters life, or the further he penetrates through will or 
through intelligence the realm of nature, the more he must 
have believed that man wanders from God, that he becomes 
perverted and degraded. This principle is almost the only 
foundation of Philo’s morality, which we shall survey rapidly. 
While we meet here with some contradictions now and then, 
yet the Greek influence extends to the language only; the back- 
ground is entirely oriental and mystic. For example, when Philo 
tells us, as Antisthenes and Zeno do, that we must live according 
to nature (Cyv duodoyoupévws ty pioet), he understands by 
human nature not only the entire domination of spirit over body, 
of reason over senses, but also the observation of all the revealed 
laws, undoubtedly, as interpreted and understood by him.§? 
When he admits, like Plato and the Stoic school, what was later 
called the “four cardinal virtues,” he represents them, at the 
same time, as inferior and purely human virtues; above these he 
shows us, as their common source, the goodness or love, a purely 
religious virtue which concerns itself with God alone, Whose 


65 ‘O onxovdviog tod mavhov Aiteov.— De Sacrificiis Abelis et 
Caini p. 152, Paris ed. 

_ 86 We quote mainly the following passage: Tlavti yevvynt® 
x01 av onovdalov fh, a9’ oloov gAtev eis yéveow' cunguic td duagtd- 
veiw éotl.—De Vita Mos., III, vol. II, p. 157, ed. Mangey. 

87 In the following words of the Scriptures: “Abraham followed 
the ways of the Lord,” the maxim taught by the most famous philosophers 


is contained, namely, that we live according to nature—De Migratione 
Abraham. 


leva ke AS BebeAyie AL Hy. oY 


image and purest emanation it is. It springs directly from the 
Eden, that is to say, from Divine Wisdom, where alone joy, 
pleasure and delight in God is found.®8 It is probably in this 
sense, and following the example of Socrates, that he identifies 
virtue with wisdom.® 

We must, finally, take care not to attribute to him Aristotle’s 
thoughts when, following the expressions of that philosopher, he 
says that virtue may come from three sources—from knowledge, 
nature and exercise.’? “True science and wisdom, according to 
Philo, is not the one which results from a natural development of 
our intelligence, but the one given to us by the grace of God. 
According to the Greek philosopher it is nature itself that drives 
us towards the good; according to Philo, there are in man two 
entirely contrary natures which combat each other, and one of 
which must necessarily succumb; thenceforth both are in a state 
of violence and restraint which does not permit them to remain 
at rest. Whence his third expedient to attain moral perfection: 
asceticism in its highest degree as a substitute for the legitimate 
control of the will and reason over our desires. In fact, it is 
not only the question here of lessening evil and of confining it to 
more or less restricted limits, but it must be pursued as long as 
the least trace of it is visible; it must be destroyed, if possible, 
root and branch. For the evil we suffer from in this world is 
entirely in our passions which Philo considers absolutely foreign 
to the nature of the soul.“! The passions, to use his language, 
have their origin in the flesh. The flesh, therefore, must be 
humiliated and mortified; it must be combatted under all forms 


68 After stating that the four virtues have their source in beauty, 
our author adds: AopBaver ev obv TOS doxas Th YEVUXT) ad tis “Edéép, 
THIS tov Geot oogias, i yalger xal yavuta xaltovpg Emi pdvy tH 10291 
avg Ocd.—Leg. Alleg., I. 

69 Kinodwevos bé éemotnunv, tov doetav Bebarotatnv ovuve- 
xtTatO wl tac GAAac Gndooc.De Nobilitate, ed. Mangey, vol. II, p. 442. 

T De Migrat. Abrah. De Somniis, I et passim. 

71 Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit. 


258 AHS RAND baa loe eed 


and in all instances ;72 we must lift ourselves from this state of 
forfeiture which is called life; we must regain liberty in the very 
bosom of that prison which we call body by absolute indifference 
to all perishable possessions.”* 

As this state of misery is the purpose and result of marriage, 
the latter is considered by Philo, without being openly condemned, 
as a humiliating necessity from which the select souls, at least, 
ought to liberate themselves.’* These, approximately, are the 
principal characteristics of the ascetic life, more so conceived and 
shown to us by Philo, than he has seen it realized by the sect 
of the Therapeutics. But the ascetic life is only a means; its 
aim, that is to say, the aim of morality itself, the highest degree 
of perfection, of happiness and of existence, is the union of the 
soul with God through total forgetfulness of itself, through 
enthusiasm and through love. 

Here are some passages which we may believe to have been 
borrowed from some mystic of modern times: “O, my soul! 
If you desire to inherit heavenly gifts, it is not only necessary, 
as our first patriarch did, to leave the land you inhabit, that is 
to say, your body; the family you were born in, that is to say, 
the senses; and the house of your father, or the word; you must 
also avoid yourself that you may be outside of you, like those 
corybants who are intoxicated with divine enthusiasm. For the 
inheritance of heavenly blessing is only there where the soul, full 
of enthusiasm, does not live any more in itself, but plunges with 
delight into divine love and, attracted, ascends towards its father. 
(Quis rerum Divinarum haeres sit.) Once delivered from all 
passion, the soul pours itself out like a pure libation before the 
Lord. For to pour one’s soul before God, to break the chains 
we find in the vain cares of this perishable life, means to step out 


72 Od} petorordterav GAG ovvdrms axdbdevav cyanGv.— Legis 
Allego., III. 

73 TO oa eioxth, Secpotnguov.—De Migrat. Abrah. Quis rerum 
divinarum haeres sit, et passim. 

74 Quod deter. potiori insidiari seleat—De Monarchia. 


THE KABBALAH 259 


of one’s self to reach the limits of the universe, and to enjoy the 
heavenly sight of Him Who always was.” (De Ebrietate.) The 
contemplative life—although it may not be the only one for man 
to choose—is placed by such principles far above all social virtues 
whose principle is love and whose aim is the well-being of man.*° 
Even the cult—I mean the outward cult—can not bring us to 
the aim we are to look for. 

Philo is really very embarrased on this point. “Just as we 
must,” he says, “take care of the body, since it is the dwelling 
place of the soul, just so must we observe the written laws; for 
the truer we will be to them, the better will we understand things 
they symbolize. In addition to this we must avoid the blame 
and the accusations of the masses.’’*® ‘This last reason resembles 
very much the postscript of some letters. This alone expresses 
the thought of our philosopher and establishes a closer relation 
between him and the Kabbalists. It also justifies the opinion the 
Talmudists had of their brethren who were initiated in Greek 
learning. 

Of what has been said until now we obtain two extremely 
important deductions with reference to the origin of the Kabbalah. 
The first deduction is that this traditional doctrine was not taken 
from the writings of Philo. Indeed, since all Greek systems— 
and we may even say the entire Greek cililization—have left so 
many traces, intimately blended with elements of another nature, 
in the writings of Philo, why do we not find the same condition 
in the oldest writings of the Kabbalistic science? We say it 
again, that we can never find, either in the Zohar or in the Book 
of Formation, the least trace of that splendid civilization which 
has been transplanted by the Ptolemies to Egyptian soil. Without 
mentioning the previously indicated external difficulties which we 


7 De Migrat. Abrah., ed. Mang., 1, I, p. 395, 413. Leg. Alleg., 
same ed. vol. I, p. 50. De Vita Contemplativa. 

76 *Qoneo otv ochwatocg txerddv wuyiic totiv olxog meovontéov, 
ota xal tv ontOv vouwv émtedntéov.. ods © xai tac dad ta 
moALav péuwers xal xatynyooiac drodidedoxerv.—De Migrat. Abrah. 


260 (RH Ree Rear tae lee 


uphold here in their full force, is it possible that Simeon ben 
Yohai and his friends, or whoever the authors of the Zohar may 
have been, could differentiate in Philo’s writings, if these were 
their only guide, between that which has been borrowed from 
the different Greek philosophers, whose names are seldom men- 
tioned by their Alexandrian disciples, and that which belongs to 
another doctrine which is based upon the idea of one and 
immanent principle which is the substance and form of all beings? 
Such a supposition is unworthy of discussion. 

Besides, what we designated as the oriental part of Philo’s 
syncretism is far from corresponding in all important points with 
the mysticism taught by the Palestinian sages. “Thus, according 
to Philo, there are only five divine forces or attributes, while the 
Kabbalists admit ten Sefiroth. Although enthusiastically expound- 
ing the doctrine, Philo nevertheless preserves always a certain 
dualism, the (absolute) Being and the forces, or the substance and 
the attributes which, according to him, are separated by an 
impassable abyss. The Kabbalists look upon the Sefiroth as diverse 
boundaries within which the absolute principle of things circum- 
scribes itself, or as ‘“‘vessels,” to use their own mode of expression. 
The divine substance, they add, need only withdraw, and these 
vessels would break and waste. Let us also remember that they 
expressly taught the identity of existence with thought. Philo, 
who is unconsciously dominated by the idea (of Plato and 
Anaxogoras) that matter is a principle distinct from God and 
everlasting as He, is naturally led to consider life a forfeiture and 
the body a prison. 

This also accounts for his contempt of marriage, which he 
regards merely as a gratification of the flesh. “The Kabbalists, 
on the other hand, although agreeing with the Scriptures that 
in the first days of the creation, when he was not ruled by sensual 
passions, man was happier than now, still look upon life in general 
as a necessary trial, as a means through which finite beings like 
we may elevate themselves to God, and unite with Him in 


ALM GRADS AA Suva bat ere gdb ekg al 261 


boundless love. Marriage to them is not only the symbol, but 
the beginning, the first condition of this mysterious union; they 
carry marriage into the soul and into heaven. It is the fusion of 
two human souls by mutual completion. The interpretative 
system, finally, which Philo applies to the Holy Scriptures, 
although basically identical with that of the Kabbalists, could 
not, however, have served as a pattern to the latter. 

Philo was surely not entirely ignorant of the language of his 
fathers; but we can easily prove that he had only the Septuagint 
version before him, the version that was used also by all the 
Alexandrian Jews. His mystic interpretations are based mainly 
upon the expressions of this translation and upon a purely Greek 
etymology.’’ Now, then, what is to become of those ingenious 
procedures used in the Zohar, whose force is entirely destroyed 
if not applied to the sacred language??® Nevertheless we admit 
that this difference in form would not be of such very great 
importance to us, if Philo and the Kabbalists were always to 
agree upon the choice of the texts, the Scriptural passages upon 
which they base their philosophical system; or, indeed, if disre- 
garding the language, the same symbols would call forth the 
same ideas. But this is never so. “Thus we do not find, either in 
the Zohar or in the Book of Formation, the least trace of those 
rich and ingenious allegories which we consider the sole property 
of the Alexandrian philosopher. No mention is made in these 


77 Here are a few examples; In the words addressed to the serpent 
whose head is to be crushed by woman, avtOs cod tnojoe xeqadyy, 
he finds with good reason a grammatical error; but this error is not 
to be found in the Hebrew text. *(Leg. Alleg., III) From the Greek 
word qetdecota: he derives the word Pishon, the name of the four 
rivers coming from the earthly paradise. The word Havilah is com- 
posed of st and of tAmc. It is of importance to him whether the name 
of God, @e6c, is or is not preceded by the definite article 6, etc. See 
Gefroerer, loc. cit., vol. I, p. 50. 

78 How, for instance, can the abstract substance be called the 
“No-Thing” (1'%—Eye-in) without the Hebrew text N8pn Pxo Foon 
‘and wisdom where shall it be found? (Job, 28, 12). What is to become 
of the names of the first three Sefiroth? How could we possibly deduct 
the unity of God and of the world from the translation of the three 
words nox 872 99 —who created these? 


262 DHE RA] B Ber Ae 


works of the personification of the senses in woman, of Eve, our 
first mother; of voluptuousness in the serpent which advised evil ; 
of egotism in Cain, which man brought forth by uniting with 
Eve, that is to say, with the senses, after listening to the advice 
of the serpent; of the mental type in Abel, which entirely despises 
the body and succumbs through ignorance of mundane things; of 
the divine science in Abraham; of mundane science in Haggar; 
of virtue in Sarah; of the primitive nature of regenerated man 
in Isaac; of ascetic virtue in Jacob, and of faith in Tamar. All 
these reasons, we believe, justify our saying that Philo’s writings 
exerted no influence whatever upon the Kabbalah. 

We come now to the second deduction which may be drawn 
from these writings, and from the character of their writer. We 
have seen how indiscriminately and with what disregard for 
sound logic Philo pillaged, so to speak, the entire Greek philosophy. 
What reason have we, then, to credit him with better inventive- 
ness, more sagacity and greater depth in that part of his opinions 
which reminds us, at least, of the dominant principles of the 
Kabbalistic system? Are we not justified in thinking that he 
found also this part all ready made in certain preserved traditions 
of his co-religionists, and that he only trimmed it with the brilliant 
colors of his imagination? In this case these traditions were quite 
old; for Egypt must have received them from the Holy Land 
before the memory of Jerusalem and of the language of their 
fathers was entirely extinguished among the Alexandrian Jews. 

But, fortunately, we need not rely upon conjectures. ‘There 
are facts which prove conclusively that some of the ideas we now 
speak of were known more than a century before the Christian 
era. We are assured by Philo himself, as we have said before, 
that he had drawn from an oral tradition which was preserved 
by the elders of his people,’® attributing to the sect of the Thera- 
peutists the mystic books of a very remote antiquity (De Vita 
contemplativa) and the use of allegorical interpretations applied 


7 De Vita Mosis, I; ed. Mangey., liv. II, p. 81. 


TAH eK OAPRLB EA LACH 263 


without exception and without reserve to all parts of the Holy 
Scriptures. “The entire law,” he says, “is to them like a living 
being in which the body is represented by the letter and the soul 
by a very deep meaning. ‘Through the words, as through a 
mirror, the rational soul perceives in the latter the most hidden 
and the most extraordinary wonders.’’®® Let us keep in mind that 
the same comparison is used in the Zohar, with the difference 
that beneath the body is put the cloak of the law by which the 
material deeds of the Bible are designated, and that above the 
soul is placed a more saintly soul, that is to say, the Divine Word, 
source of all inspiration and of all truth. But we have still older 
and more reliable witnesses than Philo. 

We shall begin with the most important of all, the famous 
version of the Septuagint. The Talmud already had a vague 
knowledge® of the numerous inaccuracies met with in this famous 
translation, yet it venerated it very highly. Modern criticism. 
has conclusively proven that the translation was made in behalf 
of a system extremely hostile®* to biblical anthropomorphism; and 
there we will find the germ of Philo’s mysticism.8? Thus, when 
the sacred text expressly states®t that Moses, his brother and the 
seventy elders saw the God of Israel sitting upon a throne of 
sapphire, the Greek translation says that it is not God they have 
seen, but the place He dwells in.8® When another prophet, Isaiah, 
sees God sitting upon His throne and the folds of His robe filling 


80 “Anaoo. yaQ n vonwotecia Soxett avdQaor TOUTOLS Eornévas tow’ 
xOL COUG ev Exew TOS Qntas diatagers, puri 58 tov évoroxsipevov 
tots éEeow G.6QU.tOV vovv, év & HoEato TN Aoyixn uxt drapegdvtme 
ta oixeta Dewoeiv, Honeg "Bud XO TOMTQOY TMV SvouaTMYV, &Eatovn xGAH 
vonuatav EuMeQoueva xatidotoa. 

—De Vita contemplativa, vol. II, p. 475, ed. Mangey. 

81 Babyl. Talm., tract. Megillah, 9a, b. 

82 The strict avoidance of anthropomorphism and anthropathy is 
easily explained by the hypothesis that the Greek translation was made 
frem an Aramaic original.—Jellinek 

83 For the necessary documents consult Gefroerer, Primitive 
Christianity, vol. II, p. 4-18, and Dahne, Historical Exposition of the 
‘ Religious Philosophy of the Alexandrian Jews, vol. II, p. 1-72. 

84 Exodus, ch. XXIV, 9, 10. 
85 Kai eldov tov témov od eiotyxer 6 Oeds tod "Iogani. 


264 SMHS eS eROAGE Beas eA 


the temple, (Isaiah, VI, 1) the Septuagint replaces this too 
material picture by the “glory of God,” the Shekinah of the 
Hebrews.®* Jehovah really does not speak to Moses face to face, 
but in a vision; and it is probable that in the mind of the translator 
this vision was only an intellectual one.*? 

Until here we see only the destruction of anthropomorphism 
and the desire to disengage the idea of God from the, sometimes, 
sublime images which put Him beyond our intelligence. But 
here are matters more worthy of our interest. Instead of “Lord 
Zebaot,’ the God of Hosts, Whom the ,Bible represents as 
another Mars exciting the fury of war and Himself marching into 
battle,88 we find in the Greek translation not the Supreme God, 
but the forces of which Philo speaks so much in his writings, and 
the Lord, the God of the forces (x’orog 6 Oeds tHv Suvducimv). 
When comparison is made to the “dew born from the bosom 
of Aurora,’®® the anonymous translator substitutes for it that 
mysterious being which God brought forth from His bosom before 
the morning star,9° that is to say, the Logos, the divine light 
which preceded the world and the stars. When speaking of 
Adam and Eve, the Septuagint is careful to adhere strictly to 
the text that God created them male and female.®! But this 
twofold character, these two halves of humanity, are united in 
one and the same being, which is evidently the prototype man, 
the Adam Kadmon.*? 

In this curious monument we can also find unquestionable 
traces of the theory of numbers and of ideas. For example: 


86 Kai ahiges 6 olxos THS d0Ens anvrov. 

87 TroUuG xaAta oTdUA AGAHowW odtH év elder. Numbers, ch. XII, 8 

88 ARP VY) nine wR NYY T1239 ‘9 (The Lord will go forth as a 
spat! man, He will stir up jealousy like a man of war)—TIsaiah, XLII, 
13. 

89 ants) $8 49 “Snwe onip (From the womb of the dawn, thine is 
the ay of thy youth) —Psalms, CxS 3. 

9 °’Ex yaoteds mod Ewoqdoou tyévvynoa Sé. 
5 On 892 2p3) 151 (Male and female created He them).—Gen., 


~ “Agoev xal OfAu éexoinoev adtov. 


pies er nisms eel ak ard 265 


God is not the creator of heaven and earth in the ordinary sense 
of the word; He simply made them visible from the invisible 
state in which they were previously.°? ‘Who created all these?” 
asks the Hebrew prophet; “Who made them visible?’®* says 
the Alexandrian interpreter. When the same prophet represents 
the master of the universe commanding the stars like a numerous 
army,®°> our interpreter makes him say that God produced the 
world according to numbers.9® While an allusion to the doctrines 
of Plato and Pythagoras is easily found in these diverse passages, 
we must not forget that the theory of numbers is also taught, 
although grossly, in the Sefer Yetzirah, and that the theory of 
ideas is absolutely inseparable from the metaphysics of the Zohar. 

We want to add here that an application of the Pythagorean 
principle is found in the first of these two monuments which is 
literally reproduced in the writings of Philo, and for which we 
shall look in vain in the works of any other Greek writing 
philosopher. It is because of the influence of the number seven 
that we possess seven principal organs—the five senses, the organ 
of speech and the generative organs; and it is for the same reason 
that there are seven gates of the soul, to wit: two eyes, two ears, 
two nostrils and one mouth.2’ We find also in the Septuagint 
another Kabbalistic tradition which was later appropriated to 
Gnosticism. When the text tells us that “the Most High marked 
the borders of the nations according to the number of children 
of Israel,’”’ we read in the Alexandrian translation that “the 
nations were divided according to the number of the angels of 

93 Oitos 6 Oedc 6 xatadeiEac ti yiv zal noujoas adtiv avtoc 
SiGoicev odtiv. —Isaiah, ch. XLV, 18. The three following words must 
be added to this passage: , which 
have long since been noticed in the second verse of Genesis. 

94 ASN RID 'D—Isaiah, XL, 26, 

95 peay 45Dp2 Region Ib. supr. See Tracy’s translation. 

96 ‘O Expequv nav’ cowwov TOV xOOLOV avtov. 

97 Tis Twetéoac WUXNS dixa. TOU Hyewovixod unoos Extaxh oxile- 


(Tat, nods névte aioticeic xal tO MPwvyTHoLov Geyavov xal Eni moor 
yovysov, x. T. A. —De Mundi opific., p, 27, Paris ed. 


266 SeHat eA eA ieee et 


the Lord.”®8 ‘This, apparently odd and arbitrary interpretation,®® 
becomes very intelligible when compared with a passage in the 
Zohar where we are told that there are seventy nations on 
earth, that each of these nations is placed under the power of 
an angel whom it recognizes as its God, and who, so to speak, is 
the personification of its own spirit. The children of Israel alone 
are privileged to have over them no one but the true God Who 
had chosen them as His people.1°1 We find the same tradition 
with another sacred writer who is just as old as the Septuagint 
version.2©2 

No doubt that the Greek philosophy which flourished in the 
capital of the Ptolomeans exercised a great influence upon this 
famous translation; but we find ideas there which have evidently 
been drawn from another source, and which could not even have 
been brought forth upon Egyptian soil. For were it otherwise, 
that is, if all the elements pointed out by us, as the allegoric 


98 oxy? 934 TBDDS py ni5133 ayy Deuter. XXXII, 8.—éotyoev 
Soia EVO V xatd Goldpov ayyéAwv Ocov. 

99 I omit here Dr. Jellinek’s footnote wherein he puts the opinion 
of the author above that of Dr. Frankel (Preliminary Studies to the 
Septuagint). We are not concerned here with the criticism of Frankel’s 
opinion. What is of importance, though, is Frankel’s remark that the 
words o58 %32 are sometimes translated in the Septuagint by 
ot &yyedou tot Oeod (the angels of God), and sometimes by viot Ozod 
(sons of God). To this Dr. Jellinek makes the following remark: 
Noteworthy is the following saying of Simeon ben Yeohai: 
oNM? 73 Pyow I WWIMT 933 FN) NW NM 7D Yow 1 BUTPR 3D INT 
SN 29D 7105) PT Nw 995 35p~9 11m «=“R. Simeon ben Yohai translated 
the words ‘and the angels of Elohim saw’ (Genesis VI, 2) with ‘the sons 
of the judges,’ and he cursed those who called them (Aramaic) 
NTS ID. ITER in Aramaic has the only meaning of “gods,” while D»7>x 
in Hebrew means also “judges.” ‘This passage shows on the one hand 
how much R. Simeon ben Yohai was opposed to the conception of “sons# 
of God;” on the other hand, the vioi Oot (sons of God) was known 
also among the Palestinian Jews.—Transl. 

100 The Talmud is also acquainted with the tradition that there are 
seventy nations and seventy languages. Compare Shekalim, fol, 13.— 
Jellinek 

101 py pyaw Sy yaa poop pyaw NN PS TID BINA 
OID RVI OY pore 1909 19D wan W331 —Zohar part I fol. 46b. 

2'Exdoto Ebver xatéotnoev hytbuevov, xal peglc xiguv “logan. 
gotiv.—Jes. Sirach ch. XVII, 17. 


‘ 


EE Wor Keon Be Ati cA’ TH 267 


interpretations of the religious elements, the personification of the 
Word and its identity with the absolute place, were the result 
of the general trend of thought of that period, in the land of 
which we spoke, how is it that during a lapse of two centuries, 
from the time of the last authors of the Septuagint version until 
Philo, not the least mention of that trend is made in the history 
of Greek philosophy ??°% But we have another, nearly contempo- 
raneous monument, wherein we find the same ‘spirit -in a more 
definite form, and the Hebrew origin of which can not be 
contested. It is the book of Jesus, son of Sirach, commonly called 
Ecclesiasticus. 

This religious author is known to us at present only through 
a Greek translation which came from the pen of his grandson. 
In a sort of preface we are told by the latter that he came to 
Egypt (probably after leaving Judea) in the thirty-eighth year 
of the reign of Evergetes II. If we take therefore the original 
writer to have lived fifty years earlier, we find him two centuries 
before the Christian era. Without placing implicit faith in the 
testimony of the translator, who assures us that his grandfather 
drew only from Hebrew sources, we want to point out that Jesus, 
the son of Sirach, is often eulogized by the Talmud under the 
name of Joshuah ben Sirach ben Eliezer.1°* ‘The original text 
‘still existed at the time of St. Jerome, and until the beginning of 
the fourth century Jews as well as Gentiles counted it among 
their sacred writings. Now then, we find in the writings of this 
ancient author not only the traditions of which we just spoke, 
but also the doctrine of the Logos or of Divine Wisdom nearly 
in the same form as it is taught by Philo and by the Kabbalists. 

Wisdom is, first of all, the same power as the Word, or the 
“Memra” of the Chaldean translators. It is the Word; it went 


108 The translator of Jesus ben Sirach, who lived about one 
hundred and fifty years before Jesus Christ, in the thirty-eighth year of 
‘the reign of Evergetes II, speaks of the Septuagint version as a work 
long since completed and known. 

104 See Zunz, The Religious Sermons of the Jews, ch. VII. 


268 U6 Ee he A Beira vere: 


forth from the mouth of the Most High (éyw ano otouatos 
mpiotov gENVov); 1° it can not be taken as a simple abstraction, 
as a purely logical being, for it manifests itself in the midst of its 
people, in the assembly of the Most High, and praises its soul 
(év wéow Aaod avtis wovyrnoetor... aiveoer weynv avric). 
(Ch. XXIV, 1.) This heavenly assembly is probably composed 
of forces subordinate to it; for the Talmud and Zohar make 
frequent use of a very similar expression to convey the same 
thought.1°° Wisdom, thus introduced upon the scene, presents 
itself as the firstborn of God; for it existed already at the very 
beginning, when time was not yet, and it will not cease to 
exist in the course of ages.4°* Wisdom has always been with 
God; (Ch. I, 1.) it is through Wisdom that the world was 
created ; Wisdom alone formed the celestial spheres and descended 
to the depths of the abyss. Its empire extends over the waves of 
the ocean, over all regions of the earth, and over all the peoples 
and all the nations that inhabit it. (Ch. XXIV, 566.) Having 
been ordered by God to look for a dwelling place here below, 
its choice fell upon Zion.1°% 

When we consider that, according to our author, every other 
nation is subject to the influence of an angel or a subordinate 
power, we ought to look upon the choice of Zion as the dwelling 
place for Wisdom as a simple metaphor. On the contrary, that 
choice shows, as the quoted tradition expressly says, that the 
spirit of God, or the Logos, acted directly without an intermediary, 
upon the prophets of Israel.1°? If Wisdom were not something 
substantial, if it were not in some way the instrument and the 
servant of God, how could it be conceived sitting upon a throne 
within a column of clouds, the same column, probably, that 
marched before the Hebrew people in the desert?!4° The spirit 


105 Ch. XXIV; de Sacy’s translation, same ch., v. 7. 

106 ASyo Sw naw (Higher Assembly). 

107 Ch. XXIV, v. 9; Sacy, v. 4.IIo0d tod aidivoc an’ doxiics extio€é we. 
108 Ch. XXIV v. 7ff.; Sacy, v. 11. 

109 Ch. XVII, v. 15. Meoic xvolov "Iooand géortw. 

110 QO @ogdvos uov év ottA@ vepéAns. 


Melee CROAtb vite Agia: Ey 269 


of this book, as well as that of the Septuagint version and the 
Chaldaic paraphrases of Onkelos, consists, on the whole, in placing 
between the Sovereign Being (6 tpiotos) and this perishable 
world a mediating power which is, at the same time, eternal and 
the first work of God; which acts and speaks for Him, and 
which is itself His word and His creative power. The abyss 
between the finite and the infinite is thus filled; heaven and 
earth are not divorced any longer; God manifests Himself through 
His word, and His word through the universe. But the Divine 
Word has no need of being recognized first in the visible things; 
it sometimes comes directly to man in the form of a holy inspira- 
tion, or through the gift of prophecy and revelation. 

It was thus that the nation was raised above all other nations, 
and aman, the lawgiver of the Hebrews, above all other men. 
I want to add here that there is no conflict in this, so important, 
result between theology and criticism. For when we inquire into 
the most orthodox translations, as that of Sacy, about the work 
that interests us at present, we shall find many allusions to the 
doctrine of the Word.44* We may say the same of the ‘Book 
of Wisdom,” where the following passage has long since been 
found :"% ‘Wisdom is more active than the most active thing... 
‘It is the breath, that is to say, an emanation of God’s power and 
a very pure effusion of the brightness of the Almighty. It is 
the reflection of the everlasting light, the spotless mirror of the 
majesty of God and the image of His goodness. Although only 
one, it can accomplish everything, and resting immutably in itself, 
it renews all things. It enters at different times into holy souls 
and makes them prophets and friends of God.” (Ch. VII, 24-27.) 

But it seems to us that the general character of this work 
comes nearer to the Platonic philosophy than to the mysticism of 


111 [ follow here Jellinek who has “schoepferische Macht (creative 
power);” the original has “vertue creative (creative virtue.)”—Transl. 

112 See especially the 1st and 24th chapter. 

113 The author gives the translation from de Sacy; while Jellinek 
cives it from the Greek text. I follow the latter—Transl. 


270 (LS oi Roache aed feck 


Philo. And as neither the age nor the true origin of this work 
is known,!"4 we are compelled to wait until a critic, more learned 
than ours, will have settled these questions.14° However, the 
facts we have collected demonstrate fully that the Kabbalah is 
neither a child of the Greek civilization of Alexandria, nor of 
pure Platonism. In fact, were we to treat only of the principle 
which serves as basis to every Kabbalistic system, namely, the 
personification of the Word and of the Divine Wisdom considered 
as the immanent cause of the beings, we can find it at an epoch 
when the particular Alexandrian spirit was still in the process of 
being born. And where do we find it? In a traditional translation, 
so to speak, of the Scriptures, and in another monument of a purely 
Hebrew origin. When details and secondary ideas are considered, 
as for example the different applications of the allegorical method, 
or the deductions that may be drawn from the metaphysical 
principle of which we have spoken, the great difference between 
the writings of Philo and those of the Hebrew Kabbalists are 
easily seen. 





114 See dom Calmet’s “Dissertation on the author of the Book of 
Wisdom, in his litteral commentary to the Old Testament,’ and Daehme, 
Licwlivesl lanl sZt. 

115 We believe, however, that the author was familiar with the 
Hebrew sources; for we find with him apocryphical legends which are 
otherwise met in the Midrashim of Palestine. Of such nature is the 
legend of the manna which had the taste of any dish desired;* also 
the legend of Joseph, who, it was believed, became king of Egypt, and . 
that during the three days of darkness the Egyptians were unable to 
keep up any artificial light—Wéisdom, ch. XVI, 20-23. See dom Calmet’s 
“Preface to the Book of Wisdom.” 

* This legend is also found in the Babylonian Talmud. Tract. 
Yoma, fol. 75. DOyYY AYD 32 PN¥ID (OT MN) INI 75DIN SRW! tor 59 
“As long as Israel ate the manna, they found in it any taste desired.”— 
Jellinek 


CHAPTER IV 


RELATION OF THE KABBALAH TO CHRISTIANITY 


Since the Kabbalah is indebted neither to philosophy nor to 
Greece, nor to the capital of the Ptolomeans, it necessarily must 
have its cradle in Asia. Judaism must have brought it forth 
through its own efforts; or it must have sprung from some other 
religion born in the Orient, and so near to Judaism as to exert 
an unquestionable influence upon it. Is it possible that Christianity 
is that religion? 

Notwithstanding the extreme interest aroused at first by this 
question, the solution of which is to be found in what has been 
previously said, we can not pause to consider it for any length 
of time. It is evident to us that all the great metaphysical and 
religious principles underlying the Kabbalah antedate the 
Christian dogmas. It is not, however, within the scope of our 
-work to compare these. 

But no matter what meaning we may ascribe to these 
principles, their form alone explains to us a fact which, we believe, 
is of very great social and religious interest. A great many 
Kabbalists converted themselves to Christianity; we mention 
among others, Paul Ricci, Conrad Otton,! Rittangel, editor of 
the Sefer Yetzirah. In more recent times, towards the end of 
the eighteenth century, we see another Kabbalist, the Polish Jew 
Jacob Frank, pass into the bosom of Catholicism with several 


1 Author of “Gali Razia” (Unveiled Secrets). Nurenberg, 1605. 
The aim of this work, which is composed entirely of Hebrew quotations 
‘translated into Latin and German, is to prove the Christian dogma by 
different passages from the Talmud and Zohar. 


271 


272 THES KA BeBe ALA 1 


thousand of his adherents, after founding the sect of the Zoharites.” 
The rabbis have long since noticed this danger, and many amonz 
them have openly shown their hostility to the study of the 
Kabbalah ;? while others protect it even today as the holy ark, 
as the entrance to the Holy of Holies, to keep the profane from 
it. Leon de Modena, who wrote a book against the authenticity 
of the Zohar,* doubts very much the salvation of those who gave 
to the press the principal Kabbalistic works.® Christians, like 
Knorr of Rosenroth, Reuchlin and Rittangel after his conversion, 
on the other hand, saw therein the most potent means of lowering 
the barrier that separates synagogue and church. In the hope 
of bringing about some day this ‘--vently desired result, they 
collected in their works all the passages of the Zohar and of 
the New Testament which present some similarity to one another. 

We are far from any religious polemics, and instead of 
following these footsteps and thus becoming their echo, we shall 
rather investigate whether there is anything in common between 
the Kabbalah and the most ancient organs of gnosticism. We 
shall thus be able to ascertain whether the principles, whose 
influence and origin we endeavor to know, were not spread outside 
of Judea; whether they did not exert their influence also upon 
other people who were entire strangers to the Greek civilization ; 
and whether, accordingly, we are not justified in regarding the 
Kabbalah as a precious remnant of a religious philosophy of the 
Orient which, transplanted to Alexandria, mingled with the 
doctrines of Plato, and under the usurped name of Dionysius 
the Areopagite® was able to penetrate even into the mysticism 


of the Middle Ages. 


2 Peter Beer, History of Jewish Religious Sects, vol. II. 

3 See Ari Noham of Leon de Modena, pgs. 7, 79 and 80. 

4 Ari Noham (the Roaring Lion), published by Julius Fuerst, Leip- 
zig, 1840. : 

5 Ib. supr., p. 7. BOON ONIN OO HINT WWD ’H Simm? Ox NPI 51 
I do not know whether God will forgive those who published these books. 

6 One of St. Paul’s converts at Athens.—Transl. 


ithe he Ae DeAsioeAT Ed 273 


Without departing from Palestine, we first meet at Samaria, 
in the days of the apostles, and probably in an advanced age, a 
very singular person—Simon the Magician (Magus). Who was 
this man who enjoyed such incontestable power (Acts. VIII, 10.) 
and such boundless admiration among his fellow citizens?? He 
may have had a base view of the motive which prompts us to 
divide the highest gifts with others, but he surely was not an 
impostor, for he looked up to the apostles and endeavored to 
obtain from them for money the power to impart the holy spirit 
(Acts, VIII, 18, 19). I go still further and maintain that his 
authority would have been in vain were it not supported by a 
well known and long accredited idea in the minds of the people. 
We find this idea very clearly expressed in the supernatural role 
attributed to Simon. The entire people, say the Acts, from the 
highest to the lowest, considered him the personification of the 
great power of God: Hic est virtus Dei quae vocatur magna 
(This man is the great power of God). (Ibid, 10.) 

Now St. Jerome tells us that our Samaritan prophet under- 
stood by it nothing else but the Word of God (Sermo Dei).® 
In this quality he must have necessarily united in him all the 
other attributes; for according to the religious metaphysics of the 
Hebrews the Word or Wisdom includes implicitly the lower 
Sefiroth. St. Jerome also gives us as authentic the following 
words which Simon® applied to himself: “I am the divine 
word, I possess the real beauty, I am the comforter, I am the 


T It is the prevailing opinion that Simon came from Githoi, a small 
Samaritan town. The historian Josephus is the only one who mentions 
a Jew, originally from Cyprus, who pretended to be a magician.— 
Antiquities, Book XX ch. VII. 

8 St. Jerome Commentar. in Matthaei ch. XXIV, in vol. VII of his 
work according to the Venetian edition. 

® On Simon Magus and his wife Helen compare Irenaeus I, 23: 
“Simon—Helenam quandam—secum circumducebat, disens, hance esse 
primam mentis ejus conceptionem, matrem omnium, per quam initio mente 
concepit, angelos facere et archangelos. .. . Transmigrantem autem de 
corpore in corpus, ex eo et semper contumeliam sustinentem in novissimis 
etiam in fornice prostitisse.”—Jellinek 


2/4 POH ey RABE SATE A 


Almighty, I am all that is in God.”!® Every one of these 
expressions corresponds to one of the Sefiroth of the Kabbalah, 
the influence of which we find again in the following fact reported 
by another church-father: “Simon, the Magician, who con- 
sidered himself the visible manifestation of the Word, wanted to 
personify also its correlating female principle, its spouse—the 
Divine Thought—in a woman of bad repute.” 

This strange conception, which finds no support either in the 
Platonic philosophy or in the Alexandrian school—if the latter 
existed already at that time—agrees wonderfully, although at the 
same time disfiguring it, with the Kabbalistic system where 
Wisdom, that is the Word, represented as the male principle, 
has, like all other principles of the same order, its half, its 
spouse which in this case is the Sefiroh that bears the name of 
“Intelligence” (73°32 —Beenah),!* and which has been taken by 
several gnostics for the Holy Spirit, being always represented by 
them in the form of a woman. Among these gnostics is the Jew 
Elxai who has many traits resembling the prophet of Samaria. 
His name even—which he surely chose himself—suggests the 
role he had taken upon himself.1% This heresiarch not only 


10 “Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego 
omnipotens, ego omnia Dei.”—lIb. supr. 

11 Clement., Recognitiones, liv. II. Iren., liv. 4, ch. KX. 

12 See second part of this work following note 42. 

13 :p> 9x, perhaps also ‘D2 %n,* the mysterious power— 
Epiphanius, 19th heresy. 

* Instead of refuting this unfortunate construction of the name 
Elxai, we shall quote the following words of Delitsch (“Orient,”’ 1841, 
col. 297-298): “Many conjectures, some conflicting apparently with the 
custom of Jewish nomenclature, some with the Greek phonetic rules 
in the transscription of Hebrew names, have been put forward about 
the name Elxai, on the orthography of which the ancients differed 
wonderfully (see variants of Coteler, Monum. I, p. 775), Little note has 
been taken of Rhenferd’s conjecture (De fictis Judaeorum haeresib., 
p. 98) which doubts the personality of Elxai and which explains the 
name as merely that of some sect by 1)WX358 or ‘80398 (the deniers) ; 
but the first is un-Arabic and the second is un-Hebraic. Besides, the 
construction which, according to Epiph. (Haeres. XIX, 2), the sect itself 
‘puts upon the name, forbids accepting the EX (HA) in the beginning 
of the word as an Arabic form of the article. The followers of Elxai 
pretend that his name means vim abstrusam (hidden power), and the 


ODER ACB BoA AL 275. 


conceives the Holy Spirit as a female principle, as just remarked, 
but he looks upon Christ as a divine power only which clothes 
itself at times in a material form and whose colossal proportions 
he describes in minute details.14 

We remember having found in the Zohar a similar description 
of the “White Head,” and that another work, very famous among 


the Kabbalists, the pseudonymous “Alphabet of Rabbi Akkiba,’’® 


Judeo-Christian Epiphanius adds: ‘because EX means power and Eau 
means hidden.’ There is no doubt that this construction is only a 
Midrash of the same name, as is often met with in old Jewish writings. 
It was not at all intended to prove the grammatical root, but to support 
mnemonically or even to establish ostensibly any accepted passage (like 
the one here of the high personality of Elxai). We must, therefore, 
inquire first into the proper Hebrew form of the name and then attempt 
to prove the possibility of putting a double meaning upon it. For, the 
transcription dP nN (Goerik, K. G. I, p. 143), which has no other 
meaning than: ‘strength which has covered,’ is, in any case, miscarried. 
The heresy of the Elxaites shaped itself in the trans-Jordanic region. 
There, in Galilee (Hier.ad NahumI,1), eis Bnyabae && quits Zupeov 
(Epiph. de Vitis Proph. 18), was a small hamlet Elcesi ("EAxeoet ), well 
known to the Jews at the time of St. Jerome, to whom the ruins of 
old houses were pointed out by his companion. Possibly the prophet 
Nahum was born here, and also the spurious prophet Elxai 
{’EAxeoaios, ’Ehxeoaic). The surname ‘wpsxn added to Nahum, 
which is rendered in the Greek translation by ’EAxeoatoc, is identical 
with that of Elxai, which can be better established phonetically and 
historically if space would permit. All the Greek variants go backyto 
°NUPON or ARWPON. The Greek letter H used in writing the name 
enjoins thinking of the Hebrew 5X, just as the — and % ( ’EAyaoaius 
with Methodius) point to the emphatic ‘Qoph’ of the Hebrew alphabet. 
It is to this name that the followers of Elxai attached their symbolic 
interpretation, and they could well afford to do it, because the modus 
operandi of the original operation perhaps did not escape from the 
language consciousness (according to the Masoretic commentary of 
Minchat Sha the spelling is found in two words *wp%oxn). They 
translated *wp->x (power of difficulty i.e., a power difficult to understand, 
secret power), or, what is not strange, with the Galileans (who, accord- 
ing to the Gemara Erubin pronounced the guttural D like f), ‘109 oN 
(covered, hidden power).”’—Jellinek 

14 Tb. supr. 

15 paypy 7 nynix(Otiot d’Rabbi Akiba). Here is a translation 
of a passage from this book: “The body of the divine presence (73'3¥ 9w 1513 
-~-Goofo shel Shekinah) has an extension of 236 times 10,000 parasangs 
(Persian road measure), to wit: 118 times 10,000 from the loins down, 
and just as much from the loins up. But these parasangs are different 
than ours. Each divine parasang has 1,000 times 1,000 cubits (nix); 
each divine cubit has four zereth (spans) and one palm; each zereth 


276 Ty Ho we las De Donelas Ante 


speaks of God in nearly the same terms. Along with this manner 
of conceiving the Word, the Holy Spirit, and in general the 
divine pairs of which the Pleroma!® is composed, we find also in 
the monuments left by the Syrian Bardasanes the principle of 
the Kabbalistic cosmogony. The unknown father who lives in 
the centre of the light has a son; this is Christ, or the heavenly 
man. Christ again, by uniting with his companion, his spouse, 
which is the Holy Ghost (t6 avetua), produces successively the 
four elements, air and water, fire and earth. ‘These elements 
and the external world in general are thus here, as in the Sefer 
Yetzirah, a simple emanation or the voice of the spirit. (Ephrem, 
hymn 55, p. 755.) 

But we need not persist in painfully gathering some scattered 
memories in the Acts of the Apostles or in the Hymns of St. 
Ephrem. ‘There is a monument of great value from which we 
may draw quite liberally. We refer to the Codex Nazareus,!* 
that bible of purely oriental gnosticism. We know that St. 
Jerome and St. Epipahnius date back the sect of the Nazarenes 
to the time of the birth of Christ.1* Now then, the similarity 
of a great many of their dogmas with the most essential elements 
of the Kabbalistic system is so great, that when reading them in the 
work just mentioned, we believe we have found some stray 
fragments of the Zohar. Thus, God is always called the king 
and the master of the light; He is Himself the purest splendor 
and the infinite and eternal light. He is also beauty, life, justice 


represents the length between the two opposite extremities of the uni- 
verse.’—Letter mn, p. 151, Krakau ed., 1579. 

16 In Gnosticism it signifies the spiritual divine nature with all the 
eons emanating from it.—Transl. 

17Codex Nazareus, 3 vol. in 4to, 1815. Pub. and trans. by Matthew 
Norberg. 

18 This opinion, accepted by most of the theologians, is to be 
preferred to that of Mosheim. To better refute Toland’s objections to 
the unity of the Christian faith, Mosheim places the origin of the 
sect of the Nazarenes in the fourth century. See Mosheim, Indiciae 
antiquae christianorum disciplinae, I, 5. 


Sec eeirAL DebpAti ACH BAI 


and mercy.!® All forms that we perceive in this world emanate 
from Him; He is the creator and the architect, but no one 
knows His own wisdom and His own essence.2° All creatures 
ask one another for His name, and they are compelled to answer 
that He has no name. As the king of the light, the infinite light, 
He has no name that can be invoked, nor is He of a nature that 
can be known; we can reach Him only through a pure heart, 
an upright spirit and a faith full of love.24_ The steps by 
which the Nazarene doctrine descends from the highest being 
to the furthest limits of the creation are the same used in a 
passage of the Zohar which has been quoted several times in 
this work: ‘“‘All genii, kings and creatures praise vyingly, with 
prayers and hymns, the supreme king of light who emanates 
five rays of marvelous brilliancy. The first is the light that 
illumines all the beings; the second is the mild breath that 
animates them; the third is the melodious voice that expresses 
their cheerfulness; the fourth is the word which instructs them 
and elevates them to bear witness to their faith; the fifth is the 
type of all forms under which they develop, like fruit which 
nourishes by the action of the sun.”’” 

We can not fail to recognize in these lines—to the translation 
of which we confined ourselves—the different degrees of exis- 


19 “Rex summjs lucis, splendor purus, lux magna. Non est mensura, 
mumerus et terminus ejus splendori, luci est majestati. Totus est 
splendor, totus lux, totus pulchritudo, totus vita, totus justitia, totus 
misericordia,” etc—Cod. Naz. vol. I, p. 5 

20 “Creator omnium formarum, pulchrarumque artifex, retinens vero 
suae sapientiae, suique obtegens, nec sui manifestus.—Ib., p. 7. 

1 “Creaturae omnes tui nominis nesciae. Dicunt reges lucis, se 
invicem interrogantes: nomenne sit magnae luci? iidimque respondent: 
nomine caret. Quia autem nomine caret, nec fuerit qui illius nomen 
invocet, noscendaeque illius naturae insistat, beati pacifici qui te agnove- 
runt corde puro, mentionem tui fecerunt mente justa, fidem tibi integro 
affectu habuerunt.” Cod. Naz., vol. I, p. 11. 

22 “Omnes genii, reges et creaturae, precationi et hymno insistentes, 
_celebrant regem summum lucis, a quo exeunt quinque radii magnifici et 
insignes: primus, lux quae illis orta: secundus, flatus suavis qui els 
adspirat: tertius, dulcedo vocis qua excellant: quartus, verbum oris quod 
erigit et ad confessionem pietatis instituit: quintus, species formae cujus- 
que, qua adolescunt, sicut sole fructus.”—Ib, supr., p. 9. 


278 Hee Re Ae ben teen 


tence which the Kabbalists represent by the thought, breath or 
spirit, voice and word. Here are other pictures, just as familiar, 
which express the same idea: Before any creature existed at all, 
life was hidden within itself, eternal and incomprehensible, 
without light and without form (ferhi). From its bosom 
developed the luminous atmosphere (aver zeevo—y}"} 4°9%) which 
is also called the “Word,” the “Garment” (L’vushah— 
xwa5, M’malelo—x55p), or the symbolical river that repre- 
sents wisdom. From this river flow the living waters, or the 
great waters which, to the Nazarenes as well as to the Kabbalists, 
typify the third manifestation of God, the Intelligence or the 
Spirit. This again produces a second life which, however, is 
far removed from the first one.*? ‘This second life is called 
“Yushamin” (1) w.—Yesh Moon, or 7» w»—Min, the place 
of the forms, of the ideas) ; “‘in its bosom the idea of the creation 
was first conceived, and it is the loftiest and purest type of the 
creation.” 

The second life gave birth to a third which is called the 
“excellent father” (abatur,,1n? 28—Av Yathar),?* the “unknown 
old one” and “the ancient of the world” (senem sui obtegentem 
et grandaevum mundi). (Ib., vol. II, p. 88.) When the 
excellent Father looked into the abyss, the darkness of the black 
waters, he left his image there, which under the name of “Fetahil’’ 
became the Demiurge or the architect of the universe.22 From 
then on begins an interminable series of Eons, an infernal and 
a celestial hierarchy which does not interest us any more. It is 
enough for us to know that these three lives, these three degrees 
in the Pleroma hold the same rank as the three Kabbalistic faces, 


23 “Antequam creaturae omnes existere, Ferho dominus existit per 
quem Jordanus existit. Jordanus dominus vicissime existit aqua viva, 
quae aqua maxima et laeta. Ex aqua vero viva, nos vita existimus.”— 
Ib., vol. I, p. 145. 

24 Perhaps the “Avatar” of Hindoo mythology.—Transl. 

25 “Surrexit Abatur et, porta aperta, in aquam nigram prospexit, 
Fictus autem extemplo filius, sui imago, in aqua ista nigra, et Fetahil 
conformatus fuit.”—Ib., vol. I, p. 308. 


THE KABBALAH 2/9 


whose very names (Parsufo—ppiyip) are often met with in the 
mouth of these sectarians ;?® and we may place so much the more 
confidence in this interpretation, as we find also among them the 
ten Sefiroth divided, as in the Zohar, in three superior and seven 
inferior attributes.?? 

What concerns the singular accident which brought forth the 
Demiurge, and as to the more and more imperfect generation 
of the subordinated genii, these are mythologic expressions of the 
principle that darkness and evil are but the gradual weakening of 


the divine light (caligo ubi extiterat etiam extitisse decrementum 
et detrimentum), which is also very clearly formulated in the 


Nazarene code. (Ib., vol. I, p. 145.) Hence the name “body” 
or “matter” (giv—yq9 or guf— }3) is given to the prince of 
darkness. (Ib., III, Onomasticon.) ‘This name does not differ 
from the one carried by the same principle in the Kabbalistic 
system (nip'Sp—Klipoth, shells, matter). 

The Nazarenes also recognized two Adams, one a celesstial, 
and the other earthly, the father of humanity. Because of his 
body, the latter is the work of the subordinated genii, the stellar 
spirits; but the soul is the emanation of the divine life.28 This 
soul, which was to return to its father in the heavenly regions, 
was detained in this world because it was seduced by evil powers. 
_ The message, then, entrusted by the Kabbalists to the angel Raziel 
is given for execution by our heretics to Gabriel, who plays quite 
an important role in their belief. It was the angel Gabriel who 
brought to our first parents, in order to raise them from their 
fall and to open to them the way to the bosom of their father, 
the true law, the word of life mysteriously spread by tradition 
until the advent of John the Baptist, the true prophet according 
to the Nazarenes, who promulgated it aloud on the shores of the 


26 Ib., vol. III, p. 126. Onomasticon. 

27 “Ad portam domus vitae thronos domino splendoris apte positus. 
Et ibidem tria habitacula. Parique modo septem vitae procreatae fuerunt, 
“quae a Jukabar Zivac (11 123, the great splendor) eaque clarae sua 
specie et splendore superne veniente lucentes.”—-Ib., vol. III, p. 61. 

28 Ib., vol. I, p. 190-200. Ib., p. 121 and 123. 


280 (RHE Pe RAS BOB TAD ree Er 


Jordan. (Vol. II, p. 25-26-117.) We could cite other traditions 
which could be taken to have been borrowed from the Midrashim 
and the Zohar;?9 but we are content with having pointed out 
that which has the best claim for the attention of the philosopher. 

Were we now to meet with the same principles in Egyptian 
Gnosticism, in the doctrine of Basilides and Valentin, it would 
be unjust to attribute them to the Greek philosophy, or even 
to Alexandrian Neoplatonism. And, in fact, it would be very 
easy for us to demonstrate in what we have still left from the 
two celebrated heresiarchs just mentioned the most characteristic 
elements of the Kabbalah, as the unity of substance,®° the forma- 
tion of things, first by concentration, then by gradual expansion 
of the divine light,?4 the theory of pairs and of the four worlds,3? 
the two Adams, the three souls,?* and even the symbolic language 
of the numbers and the letters of the alphabet.24 But we have 
nothing to gain from demonstrating this similarity; for we 
believe we have reached the aim we have set for ourselves in the 
last part of our work. After having previously established that 
the metaphysical ideas which make up the foundation of the 
Kabbalah were not borrowed from Greek philosophy; that, instead 
of being born either in a Pagan school or in the Jewish school 
of Alexandria, they were brought thither from Palestine, we 


29 We shall cite among others how the Nazarenes explain the forma- 
tion of the foetus and the part attributed by them to both parents.— 
Vol. II, p. 41, of the Codex Nazareus. 

30 “Continere omnia petrem omnium et extra pleroma esse nihil, 
et id quod extra et id quod intra secundum agnitionem et ignorantiam.” 
Iren., II, 4. 

31 At the head of things is the “Bythos” or Ineffable, from whose 
bosom spring in pairs all the Eons that constitute the Pleroma. But 
all these emanations would lose themselves in the limitless infinite, if 
there were not a vessel ( dg0¢ ) which gives them solidity and consis- 
tency.—Iren., ib. supr. Neander, Genetic History of Gnosticism, article 
Valentin. 

32 Matter is the lowest world. Immediately above it are the 
Demiurge and the human soul (Olam Yetzirah). One step higher we 
meet the spiritual things, ‘wvevpotixot (Olam Bree-ah), and finally the 
Pleroma (Atziluth).—Ib. supr. 

383 See Neander, work cited, p. 219. 

84 Neander, p. 176, Doctrine of Marcus. 


PE Ke Aa Bebe AcineA, H 281 


have finally proven that its cradle is not as yet to be found in 
Palestine, or at least, in the so-called Judea. 

For in spite of impenetrable mystery with which the teachers 
of the synagogue surround them, we find them in a less abstract 
and not so pure form, it is true, in the infidel capital of the 
Samarians and with the heretics of Syria. It matters little that 
here they were taught to the people as the foundation of the 
religion, and assumed thereby the character of mythological 
personification,®® while there, having become the property of the 
elite intelligences, they made up rather an extensive and profound 
metaphysical system. ‘The basis of these ideas remains the same; 
their interrelation, whether in the formulas with which they are 
clothed, or in the more or less phantastical traditions that accom- 
pany them, remain unchanged. We still have to investigate, 
therefore, from what part and from what religion of the Orient 
they may have come to penetrate directly into Judaism, and from 
there into the different systems we have mentioned. It is this last 
step we still have to make in order to fully accomplish our task. 


35 Plotinus with his usual profoundness had already noticed that 
Gnosticism generally compares the intelligible things to sensual and 
material nature: Naturam intelligibilem in  similitudinem deducunt 
sensibilis deteriorisque naturae.—Enneade, liv. IX, ch. 6. 


CHAPTER V 


RELATION OF THE KABBALAH TO THE RELIGION 
OF THE CHALDEANS AND PERSIANS 


Were we to find within the present circumscribed limits of 
our investigation a people, distinguished by its civilization as well 
as by its political power, which exercised an immediate and lasting 
influence upon the Hebrews, we could evidently find within the 
bosom of such a people the solution of the problem we have 
raised. We find these conditions complied with, even beyond 
the unreasonable demands of the critic, in the Chaldeans and 
Persians who were united into one nation by the arms of Cyrus 
and by the religion of Zoroaster. And, indeed, can we think of 
a more appropriate event in the life of a people that could change 
its moral constitution and modify its ideas and customs as the 
memorable exile that has been called the Babylonian captivity? 
Is it possible that the seventy years sojourn of the Israelites, 
priests and laymen, teachers and common people, in the land of 
their conquerors, exerted no influence on either side? We have 
already cited a talmudical passage wherein the elders of the 
synagogue openly acknowledge that their ancestors brought with 
them from the land of their exile the names of the angels, the 
names of the months and even the letters of the alphabet. 

It is impossible to suppose that the names of the months were 
not accompanied by certain astronomical knowledge,! probably 


1 I should also have said “astrological;” for the influence of the 
stars played at that time quite an important role in the religious ideas 
of the Jewish people. The Talmud distinguishes auspicious and inaus- 


282 


THE KABBALAH 283 


of such a nature as we have met in the Sefer Yetzirah, and that 
the names of the angels were separated from the entire celestial 
and infernal hierarchy adopted by the Magi. It has also long 
since been noted that Satan appears for the first time in the 
sacred writings in the story of the Chaldean Job.2 This rich 
and learned mythology, which has been adopted by the Talmud 
and spread in the Mishnah, constitutes also the poetical part and, 
if I may use the expression, the outer cover of the Zohar. But 
we do not wish to insist upon this long known fact. Disregarding 
the Chaldeans, who left no visible or reliable trace, and who, 
besides, were morally and materially conquered by the Persians 
before the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, we shall prove 
the presence, if not of the most general principles, but of nearly 
all the elements of the Kabbalah in the Zend Avesta and the 
religious commentaries depending upon it. | 

We wish to remark, incidentally, that this vast and admirable 
monument which has been known to us for more than a century, 
at this epoch, when we so eagerly follow up all sources, did not 
yet render all the service to historic philosophy—the true science 
of the human mind—which the latter justly expects of it. We 
do not pretend to fill the gap; but we hope to show the trans- 
“mission of ideas between Persia and Judea, as we have already 
done in part, with reference to Judea and Alexandria. 

We must first point out that all chronologists, whether Jewish 


picious days; and even to-day the Jews wish one another a lucky 
influence of the stars (310 5t»—Mazol Tov) at any important event in 
their life when they wish to show mutual interest.* 

* Although this fact is correct, yet it does not prove what the 
author has in mind. For, just as little as the German thinks of the 
astrological origin of the word “Unstern,” or the French of “desastre,” 
or the Italian of “disastro,” so little does the Jew think of the influence 
of the stars when wishing 2:65tp. 319 (Mazol) in the Jewish idiom 
ha$ a meaning identical with “luck.’’?—Jellinek 

® The author probably meant the 09299 n\31» (Mazoleth K’chovim) 
—astral fates—; by which the Jews designate the Zodiacal signs.— 
Transl. 

2 Compare Zunz, “Religious Sermons of the Jews,” p. 158.—Jellinek 


284 bere UAC eA e 


or Christian,*? agree that the first deliverance of the Israelites 
who remained captives in Chaldea since Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra, 
I, 1) took place during the first years of the reign of Cyrus over 
Babylon, 536 to 530 before the Christian era. The divergence of 
opinion confines itself to this very limited period. If we are to 
believe the calculations of Anquetil-Dupperon,* Zoroaster had 
already commenced his religious mission in 549, that is at least 
fourteen years before the first return of the captive Hebrews to 
their fatherland. Zoroaster was then forty years old; the most 
brilliant epoch of his life had begun, and continued until 539. 
During these ten years Zoroaster converted to his law the entire 
court and kingdom of king Gustasp, believed to have been 
Hystaspis, father of Darius. During these ten years the reputa- 
tion of the new prophet dismayed even the brahmins of India, 
and when one of these came to the court of Gustasp for the 
purpose of overpowering the one he called impostor, he and all 
that were with him were compelled to yield to the irresistible 
power of their adversary. From 539 to 524, finally, Zoroaster 
openly taught his religion in the capital of the Babylonian empire, 
which he converted entirely by connecting wisely his own teachings 
with the already existing traditions.® 

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Israelites, who witnessed 
such a revolution, and returned to their fatherland at a time 
when that revolution spread its most vivid brilliancy and, conse- 
quently, must have left the strongest impression upon their minds 
—is it possible, I say, that they took with them no trace of it, 
not even in their most secret opinions and ideas? Must not 


3 Scaliger, Emendatio tempor., p. 576. Alph. Desvignoles, Chron- 
ology, vol. II, p. 582. Bossuet, General History, vol. II. Seder Olam Raba, 
ch. XXIX, p. 86. David Ganz, liv. I, year 3392, and liv. II, 3390. 
Zunz, the twenty-four books of the Holy Scriptures, chronological table 
reproduced in Vol. XVIII of Cahn’s Bible. To convince ourselves of 
the harmony between the Jewish and the Christian chronologists we 
need only note that the Jews fixed the advent of Christ on the con- 
ventional date of 3760 after the creation. 

4 Zend Avesta, vol. II, Life of Zoroaster. 

5 Zend Avesta, vol, II, Life of Zoroaster, 


eghictie KA ° BiB Avda AH 285 


the great question of the origin of evil, which until then remained 
untouched by Judaism, and which is, so to speak, the centre and 
starting point of the religion of the Persians, must it not have 
acted powerfully upon the imagination of these people of the 
Orient, who were accustomed to explain everything by divine 
intervention and to ascend in similar problems to the source of 
things? It can not be argued that because they were crushed 
under the weight of their misfortune they remained strangers 
to all that happened around them in the land of their exile. The 
Scriptures themselves point to them with some satisfaction as 
being instructed in all the sciences and, consequently, in all the 
ideas of their conquerors, and admitted with the latter to the 
highest dignities of the empire. 

This is just the character of Daniel, Zerubabel and Nehemia,® 
the two latter playing such an active part in the deliverance of 
their brethren. But this is not all. Besides forty thousand people 
who returned to Jerusalem under Zerubabel, a second emigration, 
headed by Ezra, took place under the reign of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, about seventy years after the first emigration. During 
this interval the religious reform of Zoroaster had time to spread 
to all parts of the Babylonian empire, and to take deep root in 
the minds of the people. From the return to their land until 
‘the conquest by Alexander the Great the Jews always remained 
the subjects of the Persian kings. And even after this event, 
until their total dispersion, they seemed to have looked upon the 
Euphrates, the banks of which they once bathed with their tears, 
as their second fatherland when their eyes and minds turned to 
Jerusalem. The Babylonian Synagogue arose under the civil and 
religious influence of the “Heads of Captivity” (nni$3 w5—Raysh 
G’lutho), and it co-operated with the one in Palestine for the 
definite organization of Rabbinic Judaism.* 


6 Daniel, I, 1, Ezra, I, 2; If, 1. Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI, 
Ca EVsGV iso 

7 Yost, General History of the Israelites, Book X, ch. XI and XII,— 
Same author, History of the Israelites since the Maccabees, vol. XIV, 
the entire XIVth book. 


286 UH Perle as a ee 


Wherever they found an asylum, at Sura, at Pompadita and 
at Nehardea, they founded religious schools which flourished no 
less than those of the metropolis. Among the teachers who 
sprang from their midst we mention Hillel the Babylonian, who 
died about forty years before the advent of Christ, and who was 
the teacher of that Yohanan ben Zakai who played such a great 
role in the Kabbalistic stories previously quoted. These same 
schools produced also the Babylonian Talmud, the final and most 
complete expression of Judaism. From the enumeration of these 
facts alone we may conclude that no nation exerted upon the 
Jews such deep influence as the Persians; that no moral power 
could have penetrated so deeply into their spirit as the religious 
system of Zoroaster with its long train of traditions and 
commentaries. 

But all doubt vanishes when we pass from the purely external 
relations to a comparison of the ideas which represent in the two 
nations the most exalted results and the very foundations of their 
respective civilizations. However, to avoid the suspicion that 
we have founded beforehand the origin of the Kabbalah upon 
isolated and purely incidental resemblances, we shall point out in 
a few words and by some examples the influence of the Persian 
religion upon Judaism in general, before demonstrating all the 
elements of the Kabbalistic system in the Zend Avesta. Far 
from being a digression, this part of our research will contribute 
no little to the strengthening of our opinion, and I hasten to 
add that I do not at all intend to speak of the fundamental! 
dogmas of the Old Testament. For, since Zoroaster himself 
continually refers to traditions much older than he, it is not 
necessary, yes, it is even not permissible from the standpoint of 
impartial criticism, to regard the following as having been 
borrowed from his doctrine: the six days of the creation, so easily 
recognized in the six Gahanbars;® the earthly paradise and the 


8 The word Gahanbars denotes the six creative epochs as well as 
the six festivals established as reminders for the faithful (M. Burnouf, 
Commentary to the Yacna, p. 309). In the first epoch Ormuzd created 


ee 


Her KeAB 2B A LAH 287 


ruse of the demon who, in the shape of a serpent, kindled the 
revolt in the soul of our first parents;® the terrible punishment 
and the increasing forfeiture of the latter who, after having lived 
like angels, were obliged to cover themselves with the skins of 
animals, to wrest the metals from the bowels of the earth and 
to invent all the arts by which we subsist;!° finally, the last 
judgment with its accompanying terrors, with the resurrection 
in spirit and flesh.14 All these beliefs are found, it is true, in 


the heavens; during the second he made the waters; in the third, the 
earth; in the fourth, the vegetations; in the fifth, the animals; and, 
finally, in the sixth, man was born. (Auquetil-Duperron, Zend Avesta, 
vol. I, part 2, p. 84; Kleuker, vol. II, No. XXVIII.) This system of 
creation was taught already before Zoroaster by another Median or 
Chaldean prophet, called Djemshid.—Auquetil-Duperron, Life of 
Zoroaster, p. 67; Kleuker, vol. III, p. 59. 

2 Ormuzd himself tells his servant Zoroaster that he, Ormuzd, has 

given (or created) a place of delight and of abundance, called Eeriene 
Veedjo. This place, more beautiful than the entire world, resembled 
the Behesht (the celestial paradise). Ahriman then created in the river 
that watered this place the Great Adder, mother of winter (Zend Avesta 
Vendidad, vol. II, p. 264). At another place Ahriman himself descends 
from heaven to earth in the shape of an adder. It is also Ahriman who 
seduces the first man, Meshiah, and the first woman, Meshiane. “He 
crept over their thoughts, he overthrew their minds, and said to them: 
It was Ahriman who gave the water, the earth, the trees and the 
animals. Thus Ahriman fooled them at the very beginning, and until 
the end this cruel one endeavored to seduce them.”’—Zend Avesta, vol. 
III, p. 351 and 378. 
_ 10 “Devi, whose speech is all lie (Ahriman), becoming still bolder, 
came a second time and brought them (to the first couple) fruit of 
which they ate, and thus only the advantage of all the advantages 
was left to them.” (Ib., supr.). Our first parents, seduced for the 
third time, then drank milk. At the fourth time, they went hunting, 
ate the meat of the animals and made for themselves garments from 
the skins, just as the Lord made coats from leaves for Adam and Eve. 
They then discovered iron, made an axe, felled trees and made tents 
for themselves; they finally united carnally and their children inherited 
their misery. (Ib. supr.) 

i1 On the day of resurrection the soul will appear first; it will 
know its body and all men will recognize one another. They will be 
divided into two classes, the righteous and the darwands (the wicked). 
The righteous will go to the Gotatman (the paradise); the darwants 
will again be precipitated into the Duzakh (the inferno). For three days 
the first ones will taste, bodily and spiritually, the joys of paradise; the 
others will in the same manner suffer the tortures of hell. The dead 
will then be purified, and there will be no more wicked ones: “All men 
will be united into the same work. At that time Ormuzd will have 


288 LS GE Ie Rar By Be As AS re 


just as explicit a form in the Bundehesh?® and in the Zend 
Avesta as in Genesis;!®> but we repeat again that we are fully 
convinced that the source is to be looked for at a much earlier 
age. We can not say the same of Rabbinical Judaism, which 
is much more modern than the religion of Zoroaster. The traces 
of Parseeism are here, as we shall soon ascertain, very visible, 
and we shall soon see what light can be thrown upon the origin 
of the Kabbalah when we keep in mind that the oldest teachers 
of this mysterious science are also counted among the doctors of 
the Mishnah and among the most venerated elders of the 
Synagogue. 

When side by side with the wisest maxims on the application 
of life, when alongside the most consoling thoughts on mercy and 
divine justice, we find also in Judaism traces of the darkest 
superstition, we must look for the cause of these, especially in the 
terror instilled by its demonology. ‘The power the latter ascribes 
to the evil spirits (psv—Shaydim, nin}\y—Ruheth) is so great 
that at every moment of his life man may think himself sur- 
rounded by invisible enemies who are set upon the loss of his 
body as well as of his soul. Man is not yet born, and they await 
him already at the cradle to contend with him for God and the 
tenderness of a mother. Hardly may he see the light of this 
world, when they assail his head with a thousand perils, and his 
thoughts with a thousand impure visions. In short, woe to 
him if he does not resist forever! For, before life has yet 
completely left the body, they come to take possession of their prey. 

Now then, in all ideas of such a nature there is a perfect 
similarity between the Jewish traditions and the Zend Avesta. 
According to this latter monument the demons or the devils, 


completed all creations and will do nothing more. The resurrected dead 
will enjoy the same rest. This could be called the seventh epoch of 
the creation, or the Sabbath of the Parsees.—Zend Avesta, vol. II, p. 414. 
12 According to the Zend Avesta, the Bundehesh is the oldest 
religious book of the Parsees——Zend Avesta, vol. III, p. 337. 
13 All, except the last two. Although resurrection has been put 
down by Maimonides as one of the “Thirteen Articles of Faith.’—Transl. 


iH he KARR AD ACH 289 


those children of Ahriman and darkness, are just as numerous 
as the creatures of Ormuzd. There are more than a thousand 
species who present themselves under all kinds of forms, and who 
wander over the earth to spread disease and sickness among man.14 
“Where,” asks Zoroaster of Ormuzd, “is the place of the male, 
where the place of the female devis; where roam the devis in 
mobs from fifty, from a hundred, from a thousand, from ten 
thousand, and, finally, from all sides? . . 15 Destroy the devis 
that enfeeble man and those that produce sickness, those that carry 
off the human heart as the wind sweeps away the clouds.” (Zend 
Av., vol. II, p. 113.) 

This is the way the Talmud expresses itself on the same 
subject: ‘Abba Benjamin said: ‘No creature could withstand 
the evil creatures (}9p'ty~—-Mazikin), had the eye the faculty of 
seeing them.’ Abbaye adds: ‘“They are more numerous than we, 
and surround us as a ditch surrounds a field.” ‘‘Every one of us,” 
says Rab Hunna,!® “has a thousand of them to the left and ten 
thousand to the right side. When we feel ourselves pressed in 
a crowd, it is because of their presence; when our knees give way 
under our body, they alone are the cause; when we feel as though 
our extremities had been broken, it is to them again that we must 
attribute this suffering.”27 ‘“The devis,” says the Zend Avesta, 
“unite with one another and reproduce themselves as man does.” 
(Zend Av., vol. II, p. 336.) But they reproduce themselves 
also through our own impurities, through the disgraceful acts of 
self-abuse, and even through the involuntary licentiousness pro- 
voked by a voluptuous thought during sleep. According to the 


14 Zend Avesta, vol. II, p. 235; vol. III, p. 158. 

15 Vendidad Sade, vol. II, of the Zend Avesta, p. 325. 

16 This scholar was generally influenced by many Persian views. 
Compare Sanhedrin, fol. 07.—Jellinek 

17 Tract. Berakoth, fol 6a. Another doctor cven accuses the 
demons of wearing out the clothes of the rabbis by rubbing against 
them,* NWT MWBMD 1937 PST Y3ND 1N—Ib. 

* yn1°7 is the possessive pronoun, talmudic for nw. The author 
who translates with “par le frottement de leur mains” found the noun 
~ “hand” in 97.—Jellinek. 


290 TH ye ABB eA Ar 


Talmud the demons resemble the angels in three things, and in 
three other things they resemble man. Like the angels they read 
the future, have wings and fly in a moment from one end of the 
world to the other; but they eat, drink, reproduce and die as 
man does.1®8 Furthermore, they all originated from the lascivious 
dreams that troubled the nights of our first father during the 
years passed in solitude,!® and the same cause even today produces 
the same effect in his descendents.2® Certain formulated prayers, 
therefore, were adopted by Jews and Parsees, whose power is to 
avert such calamity.2!_ The same phantoms, the same terrors, 
finally, besiege these as well as the others at their last moment. 

Man scarcely dies, say the Zend books, when he is taken 
possession of and questioned by the demons. (Zend Av., vol. II, 
p. 164.) The Daroudj (the demon) Nesosh comes in the form 
of a fly, places himself upon the head and beats him mercilessly. 
(Zend Av., vol. II, p. 316.) The soul, separated from the body, 
arrives then at the bridge Tchinevad, which separates our world 
from the invisible world; there it is judged by two angels, one 
of whom is Mithra, of colossal proportions, with ten thousand 
eyes, and holding a club in his hand.** ‘The rabbis, retaining 


18 This passage was translated into Latin by Buxtorf in his 
“Lexicon Talmudicus,” p. 2339.* 

* It is found in Tractat Haggigah, fol. 16a. I have already cor- 
rected the original French text where the author omits the words 
“and die.” For corroboration I quote literally from the Talmud: 
myow BIS 35 Mow) noiwn 8ops owsw pw. 11DN] BAIT AwY 
‘BID “TWh «DSN FIDO pDO) LNW %S8Sp5 Ohs> ond eve nw DNSD9 
JOT8 9323 TWO8WI 3 NWT USNODS Ny DWnyy NX pI .NIWA Rod 

DIX 929 OND ,OIN 345 pnw) O58 

The phrase 1325 133m (our rabbis taught) and the expression 179x3 
(it was said) may testify to the old age of this translation.—Jellinek 

19 Tb. supr.* 

* Compare also Tract. Erubin, fol. 18b. S58 fepw orow tne 95 
Posy PWT PM Ws 3992 Nwsein—Jellinek 

20 See in the nna nimi %2wv 11N°P, (p. 108a of the Amsterdam ed.) 
quite a curious extract from Rabbi Menahem, the Babylonian. 

21 Zend Avesta, vol. II, p. 408. Kitzur, in the edition quoted in 
the previous note, p. 92b, 45a. 

22 Zend Avesta, vol. II, p. 114, 151. Ib., vol. III, p. 205, 206, 
211-222. 


THE KABBALAH 291 


the same basic idea, picture it still more frightfully. “When 
man,’ they say, “who is about to leave this world, opens his eyes, 
he notices in his house an extraordinary light, and standing before 
him he sees the angel of the Lord clothed in light, his body 
studded with eyes and his hand holding a flaming sword. At 
the sight of this the dying man is seized with fright which 
permeates his body and spirit. His soul flees gradually to all 
the extremities, as one desiring to change his place. But when 
he comes to know that it is impossible for him to escape, he looks 
into the face of the one standing before him and delivers himself 
entirely into his power. If the dying man is a righteous one, the 
divine presence (Shekinah) appears to him and the soul soon 
disappears beyond the body.’ 

This first test is followed by another, which is called the 
torture or the ordeal of the grave (43pm pinyn—; Hibut 
Hakover).24 “As soon as the dead is put in his grave, the soul 
unites again with him, and opening his eyes, he sees two** angels 
who come to judge him. Each holds in his hand two fiery rods 
(others say fiery chains), and the soul and the body are judged 
at the same time for the evil they have done together. Woe to 
the man when he is found guilty, for no one will defend him! 
At the first blow all his limbs are dislocated ; at the second, all his 
bones are broken. But his body is soon reconstructed and the 
punishment begins anew.’6 

We must value these traditions the more, since they have 
been taken nearly literally from the Zohar, from where they 


23 Zohar, part III, sect. p. 126b, Amsterdam ed. While taking 
the foundation of this scene from the Zohar we have added a few details 
from the Kitzur, p. 20, 21. 

24 According to the Kabbalists there are seven ordeals: 1, the 
separation of body and soul; 2, the recapitulation of the deeds of our 
life; 3, the time of burial; 4, the ordeal or judgment of the grave; 5, 
the time when the dead, still animated by the vital spirit w5:—Nefesh), 
feels the biting of the worms; 6, the punishment of hell; 7 the metem- 
psychosis.—Zohar, ib. supr. 

25 According to the Zohar text there are three angels, °%3 &N?N- 
AVI KONI ROI NM) NIIPT NIT SY 10D xII—Jellinek 

26 The same passage of the Zohar and of the Kitzur. 


292 HIE AC ETB EAT 


passed into the purely rabbinical writings and into the popular 
collections. We can add to these beliefs a host of religious 
customs and practices, equally commanded by the Talmud and 
the Zend Avesta. ‘Thus the Parsee, when leaving his bed in the 
morning, must not make four steps-before having put on the holy 
girdle which is called the Kosti,2” under the pretext that during 
the night he had been contaminated by contact with the demons, 
and he must not touch any part of his body before having washed 
his hands and face three times..28 We shall find the same duties, 
based upon the same reasons, with the followers of the rabbinical 
law ;?® with the difference that the Kosti is replaced by a garment 
of another shape. ‘The disciples of Zoroaster and the followers of 
the Talmud consider themselves duty bound to greet the moon at 
its first quarter with prayers®® and thanksgivings.3! The practice 
of keeping from the dead or from the newborn the demons who 
try to take possession of them, are nearly the same with both. 





27 Zend Avesta, vol. II, p. 409, Vendidad Sade. 

28 Thomas Hyde, Religio veterum Persarum, p. 465, 477. 

28 Orach Haim, directions for the washing of the hands 
(n’s* m3%o2 n135n), p. 54. The same is recommended by the Kabbalists. 
According to the latter, the higher soul leaves us during sleep, and 
we thus remain only with the vital soul which is incapable of defending 
the body against impure spirits and deadly emanations.—Zohar, part I, 
sect. 2. See also the Talmud, Tract. Sabbath, ch. VIII. 

30 This grouping of the Talmudists with the followers of the 
Zoroastrian doctrine is incorrect. The Parsee praises the moon as an 
“Umshaspand that has light in it,” while the Jew praises God Who 
“renewed the moon.” ‘To the Parsee the moon is in itself an object 
worthy of devotion; the Jew, on the other hand, says: “Praised be He 
Who formed thee, praised be He Who made thee, praised be He Who 
owns thee, praised be He Who created thee.” It is true that we must 
refer the origin of the benediction of the moon (325 N}293) to Parseeism, 
but only in so far as the Rabbis were compelled to consider the influence 
of Parseeism upon the people.—Jellinek 

31 Zend Avesta, vol. III, p. 313. This custom is still extant to-day 
under the name of “Sanctification of the moon” (7329 w/7°D). 

82 As soon as a Parsee woman has been delivered of a child, a 
burning lamp or a fire is maintained in her room for three days and 
three nights—Zend Av., vol. III, p. 565. Th. Hyde, l. c. p. 445. The 
Jews observe the same custom at the death of a person. The ceremony 
of keeping away the demon Lillith from the newborn is still more 
complicated. But the reason for and the description of it are given in 
the book of Raziel. 


THE KABBALAH 293 


The Parsee as well as the Jew carry their devotion, if I may 
say so, even to profanation. ‘There are prayers and religious 
duties for every moment, for every action, for every situation of 
the physical and moral life.2 Although we do not lack material 
for further expansion on this subject,?4 we think it time to finish 
this parallel. But even the fantastic and eccentric facts which 
we have collected lend greater certainty to the conclusion which 
we draw from them. For it is surely not in such beliefs and in 
such actions that we can invoke the general laws of the human 
mind. We believe, though, we have demonstrated that the 
religion, that is to say the civilization of ancient Persia, left 
numerous traces in all parts of Judaism; in its celestial mythology 
as represented by the angels; in its infernal mythology, and, 
finally, in the practice of the outward cult. Are we now to 
believe that its philosophy, that is, the Kabbalah, alone escaped 
this influence? Is such an opinion probable, when we know 
that the Kabbalistic tradition developed in the same manner, in 
the same time, and, like the oral law of the Talmudic tradition, 
it rests upon the same names? Far be it from us to content 


88 In the litany collection called “Yeshts Sades” we find prescribed 
‘prayers which the Parsee must say when cutting his nails, before and 
after attending to the call of nature, and before attending to conjugal 
duty.—Zend Av., vol. III, p. 117 120, 121, 123, 124. Similar prayers for 
the same circumstances are prescribed for the Jews. See Joseph Karo, 
Schulchan Aruch, p. 2, 80297 N93 nyn3n, and Kitzur, p. 32 st 3°2y 

34 ] want to emphasize a few points where the influence of 
Parseeism upon Judaism appears very plainly. Three steps backward 
are to be taken after finishing the “eighteen benedictions” (Mwy ANY) 
Compare Tract. Yoma 53b; Orach Hayim, CXXIII, par. 1. This 
custom is often mentioned in the Zend Avesta. The Parsee does not 
speak during a meal (Kleuker, Zend Av., III, 235); this was also the 
custom among the Talmudists. Compare Tract. Taanit, fol. 5b: 
NYO. pm Px mn VY sk R. Yohanan said: “Speaking during a 
meal is not customary.” Compare also Orach Hayim, CLXX, part Q. 
But we must hold on here to the viewpoint I established in my foregoing 
note. Because of the long sojourn in the Babylonian empire and because 
of the constant intercourse with it, the Jews adopted the Persian 
superstition and disbelief. The superstitition rooted deep in the people, 
while the strange source whence it came was forgotten and vanished 
from memory. The talmudical teachers, therefore, could do no 
better than instigate religious feeling and reverence to God by utilizing, 
with some modifications, the popular superstition.—Jellinek 


294 1H EO Re Aye Br nei Aes 


ourselves with a simple conjecture, no matter how well founded, 
on a subject of such a grave nature. We shall take up one by 
one all the essential elements of the Kabbalah, and show their 
perfect resemblance with the metaphysical principles of the religion 
of Zoroaster. This method of procedure, although not very 
_ learned, must appear at least as most impartial. 

1. The part played in the Kabbalah by. the Ayn Sof, the 
infinite without name and without form, is given by the theology 
of the Magi to eternal time (Zervane Akerene), and, according 
to others, to limitless space.2> We want to note right here that 
the term “space” or “absolute place’ (p}py—-Mokaum) has 
become with the Hebrews the very name of the divinity. Further- 
more, this first principle, this only and supreme source of all 
existence, is only an abstract God, without direct action upon the 
beings, without active relation to the world, and consequently, 
without any appreciable form to us; for good as well as evil, 
light as well as darkness are still huddled together in His bosom.*® 
According to the sect of the Zervanites, whose opinion has been 
conserved by a Persian historian,®* the principle we just mentioned, 
Zervan himself, would be, like the crown of the Kabbalists, but 
the first emanation of the infinite light. 

2. The “Memra” of the Chaldean translators is Mae 
recognized in the following words by which Ormuzd himself 
defines the “Honover” or the creative word: “The pure, the 
holy, the speedy Honover, I tell it to you, O wise Zoroaster! 
was before the heavens, before the waters, before the earth, 
before the herds, before the trees, before the fire, the son of 


35 Auquetil-Duperron, in the ‘“Memoires de J Academie des 
Inscriptions,” vol. XXXVII, p. 584. 

36 Vol. II of the Zend Av., Vendidad. Ib., vol. III, Bundehesh. 
Ormuzd and Ahriman are called in this book a single people of limitless 
time. 

37 Sharistani, ap. Thomas Hyde, de Veter. Pers, relig., p. 297. 
“Altera magorum secta sunt Zervanitae qui asserunt lucem produxisse 
personas ex luce, quae omnes erant spirituales, luminosae, dominales. 
Sed quod harum maxima persona, cui nomen Zervan, dubitavit de re 
aliqua, ex ista dubitatione emersit Satanas.” 


_ Le 


ere aISeAT DAB TAT Le APH 295 


Ormuzd, before the pure man, before the devis, before all the 
existing worlds, before all the good things.” But the very same 
word Ormuzd created the world, and by it he acts and exists. 
(Zend Av., vol. II, p. 138.) But the word existed not only 
before the world; although “given by God,”—as the Zend books 
say—*® it is eternal as He is. It takes the part of mediator 
between limitless time and the existences that flow from its 
bosom, It embraces the source and model of all perfection, and 
has the power to realize them in all beings.8® What establishes, 
finally, its resemblance with the Kabbalistic “Word,” is that it 
has a body and a spirit, that is to say, that it is the Spirit and the 
Word at the same time. It is the Spirit, because it is no less than 
the soul of Ormuzd, as he himself expressly said; (Zend Av., 
vol. II, p. 415) it is the Word or the body, that is to say the 
spirit become visible, because it is at the same time the law and 
the universe. (Zend Av., vol. III, p. 325, 595.) 

3. In Ormuzd we find something that resembles fully what 
the Zohar calls ‘‘person” or “face’ (\sy1B—Partsuf). He, 
Ormuzd, is in fact the highest personification of the creative word, 
of that “excellent word” of which his soul is made. It is in him 
also rather than in the highest principle, in the eternal time, that 
-we are to look for the union of all the attributes ordinarily 
ascribed to God, and which make up His manifestation, or, in 
the language of the Orient, the most brilliant and purest light. 
“Tn the beginning,” say the sacred books of the Parsees, “Ormuzd, 
elevated above everything, was with the supreme wisdom, with 
the purity and in the light of the world. This luminous 
throne ( 723592—Merkaba), this place inhabited by Ormuzd, is 
the one called the primitive light.” (Zend Av., vol. III, p. 343.) 
Like the celestial man of the Kabbalists, he combines in him the 


- 38 Memoires de ]’Academie des Inscriptions, vol. XXXVII, p. 620. 
39 Ib. supr. Here are the words of the author: “The Honover 
combines, according to Zoroaster, the source and the model of all the 
perfection of the beings, the power to produce, and it manifests itself 
only by a kind of prolation of infinitestime and of Ormuzd.” 


296 SHy hee RAGE eB eAs AAT 


true knowledge, the highest intelligence, the greatness, the good- 
ness, the beauty, the energy or the strength, the purity or the 
splendor; it is he, finally, who had created, or formed at least, 
and who nourishes all beings.4° These qualities in themselves 
and their resemblance to the Sefiroth can not, of course, lead 
us to any conclusion; but we can not help noticing that they are 
all united in Ormuzd, whose role, in relation to infinity and to 
unlimited time, is the same as that of the Adam Kadmon in 
relation to the Ayn Sof. Indeed, if we are to believe an already 
quoted historian, there existed among the Persians a very numerous 
sect in whose estimation Ormuzd was the divine will manifested 
in a highly resplendent human form.*! It is also true that the 
Zend books say nothing of how Ormuzd brought forth the world, 
in what manner he himself and his enemy sprang from the bosom 
of the Eternal, and, finally, what constitutes the primitive sub- 
stance of things.42 But when God is compared to light, when 
the efficient cause of the world is subordinated to a higher 
principle, and the universe considered as the body of the invisible 
word, we must necessarily consider the beings as isolated words 
of that infinite light. We wish also to remark that the gnostic 
pantheism is more or less connected with the fundamental principle 
of the theology of the Parsees.*? 

4. According to the Kabbalistic belief, as well as according 


40 See Eugene Burnouf, Commentaire sur le Yacna, ch. I, to p. 146. 

41 This is the sect of the Zerdustians. The following is their view 
as given by Sharistani in the Latin translation of Thomas Hyde (de 
Vet., Pers. rel., p. 928): “et postquam effuxissent 3000 anni, transmisisse 
voluntatem suam in forma lucis fulgentis in figuram humanam.” 

42 They say that Ormuzd and Ahriman were given by Zervan, the 
eternal time. That Ormuzd has given the heavens and all its products. 
But the sense of this important word is nowhere determined clearly. 

43 Tt is nevertheless important to note that in the Zend Avesta 
(Vol. II, p. 180) Ormuzd is called the “body of the bodies.” Is it not, 
perhaps, the “substance of the substances,” the “basis” (!0»— Y’sod) of 
the Kabbalists? Burnouf mentions also a very old Phelvic commentary, 
where we find, as in the Sefer Yetzirah and in the Zohar, both worlds 
represented by the symbol of a burning coal; the higher world is the 
flame, and the visible nature is the burning matter—Comment. sur le 
Wiacnas pei) ce. 


HOEK AMBER Asle AH 297 


to the Platonian system, all beings of the world existed at first in 
a more complete form in the invisible world. Each one of them . 
has in the divine thought its invariable model, which can come 
to light here below only through the imperfection of matter. This 
conception, wherein the dogma of pre-existence is mingled with 
the principle of the theory of ideas, is found also in the Zend 
Avesta under the name of “Ferouer.” The greatest orientist of 
our days explains this word as follows: “It is known that by 
“Ferouer’ the Persians understood the divine type of each intelli- 
gently endowed thing, its idea in the thought of Ormuzd and 
the higher spirit that breathes in it and watches over it. This 
meaning is supported by the tradition as well as by the texts.’44 

The interpretation of Auquetil-Duperon agrees perfectly with 
this one,*® and we shall not cite all the passages of the Zend Avesta 
that confirm it. We would rather point out a very remarkable 
coincidence on one particular point of this doctrine between the 
Kabbalists and the disciples of Zoroaster. We still recall that 
magnificient passage in the Zohar where the souls, about to be 
sent to earth, represent to God how they will suffer while away 
from Him; what misery and contamination awaits them in our 
world. Well then, in the religious traditions of the Parsees the 
-Ferouers make the same complaint, and Ormuzd answers them 
nearly as Jehovah answers those souls which are grieved over 
leaving heaven. He tells them that they were born for struggle, 
to combat evil and make it disappear from the creation, that they 
can only then enjoy immortality and heaven, when their task 
upon earth shall have been accomplished.4® “Think what advan- 
tage you will have when, in the world, I shall permit you to 
stay in bodies. Fight and make the children of Ahriman disappear. 
In the end I shall rehabilitate you in your first estate and you 


44 Comment. sur le Yacna, p. 270. ; 

45 See “Explanatory compendium of the Theological system of 
Zoroaster,” Zend Av., vol. III, p. 595, and the Memoires de l’Academie 
des Inscript., vol. XX XVII, p. 623. 

46 Mem. de |’Acad. des Inscript., vol. XXXVII, p. 640. 


298 THE K AB BA LIA 


will be happy. In the end I shall set you again in the world, 
and you will be immortal, ever young and faultless.” (Zend Av., 
vol. II, p. 350). Another feature that reminds us of the 
Kabbalistic ideas, is that the nations have their ferouers just as 
the individuals, and thus the Zend Avesta often invokes the 
ferouer of Iran where the law of Zoroaster was recognized first. 
However, this belief, which we meet also in the prophecies of 
Daniel, (Ch. X, 10ff.) was probably long since widely spread 
among the Chaldeans before their political and religious fusion 
with the Persians. 

5. If the psychology of the Kabbbalists has some resemblance 
with that of Plato, it has greater resemblance with that of the 
Parsees, as represented in a collection of very old traditions which 
have been, for the most part, reproduced by Auquetil-Duperron 
in the “Mémoires de 1’Académie des Inscriptions.” (Vol. 38, 
p. 646-648.) Let us first recall that according to the Kabbalistic 
theories there are in the human soul three powers, perfectly 
distinct one from another, which are united only during earthly 
life. On the highest level is the spirit proper ( pyv3—N’shamah), 
the pure emanation of the Divine Intelligence, destined to return 
to its source, and unaffected by earthly contaminations; on the 
lowest level, immediately above matter, is the principle of motion 
and sensation, the vital spirit (wbh3J—Nefesh) whose task ends 
at the brink of the grave. Between these two extremes, finally, 
is the seat of good and of evil, the free and responsible principle, 
the moral person (mii—Roo-ah) 4? 

We must add that several Kabbalists and some philosophers 
of great authority in Judaism have added to these three principal 
elements two others, one of which is the vital principle ( >>n 
—He-hoh), the intermediary power between the soul and the 
body, apart from the principle of sensation; the other is the type, 
or, we may say, the idea which expresses the articular form of 
the individual (s>»p»—Y’hidah, p5y—Tselem, xo3;337—Dougma). 


47 See Part II, ch. III. 


THE KABBALAH 299 


This form descends from heaven into the womb of the woman at 
the time of conception and leaves thirty days before death. During 
this period (of thirty days) it is replaced by a shapeless shadow. 

The theologic traditions of the Parsees set up precisely the 
same distinctions in the human soul. We easily recognize the 
individual type in the ferouer which, having existed in heaven in 
a pure and isolated state, is compelled, as we have seen above, 
to unite with the body. In no less evident manner do we find 
again the vital principle in the Dian, whose part it is, as the 
author our guide says, to conserve the forces of the body and to 
maintain the harmony in all its parts. Like the “He-yah” of the 
Hebrews, it takes no part in the evil of which man is guilty; it is 
but a light vapor that comes from the heart, and which must mix 
with the earth after death. The Akko, on the contrary, is the 
highest principle. It is above evil, as the preceding principle is 
below it. It is a kind of light that comes from heaven, and 
which must return thither when our body is returned to the 
dust. It is the pure intelligence of Plato and of the Kabbalists, 
but restricted to the knowledge of our duties, to the prevision of 
future life and to resurrection, in short, to moral consciousness. 
We finally come to the soul proper or the moral person, which 
is one, notwithstanding the diversity of its faculties, and which 
alone is responsible to divine judgment for our actions.*® Another 
distinction, though much less philosophical but equally admitted 
by the Zend books, is the one which makes man the image of 
the world and which recognizes in his consciousness two opposite 
principles, two Kedras, one, coming from heaven, leads us to 
good, while the other, created by Ahriman, tempts us to do evil.*® 
These two principles which, nevertheless, do not exclude liberty 


48 The soul proper or the moral person, is itself composed of three 
faculties; 1, the principle of sensation; 2, the Roe or intelligence proper; 
3, the Rouan, which holds the centre between the power of judgment 
and imagination. ‘These three faculties are inseparable and make up 
the one soul. Otherwise, I admit that this part of the psychology of 
the Parsees is not very clear to me. 

49 Mem. de l’Acad. des Inscript., passage quoted. 


300 DHE ROASTS Bun thy oat 


of action, play quite a prominent role in the Talmud where they 
become the good and the evil desire (33) "y: —Yetzer Tov, 
yin ay»—Yetzer Ha-rah); possibly also the good and the evil 
angel. 

6. Even the conception of Ahriman, notwithstanding its 
purely mythological character, was preserved in the doctrines of 
the Kabbalah; for darkness and evil are personified in Samael, 
just as the divine light is represented in all its splendor by the 
heavenly man. As to the metaphysical interpretation of this 
symbol, namely that the evil principle is matter, or, as the 
Kabbalists say, the “shell,” the last degree of existence, it is 
found, without straining the subject, in the sect of the Zerdustians 
who established between the divine light and the kingdom of 
darkness the same relation as between the body and its shadow.®® 

But another fact, more worthy of our attention, because not 
to be found elsewhere, is that we find in the oldest parts of the 
religious codes of the Parsees the Kabbalistic view that the prince 
of darkness, Sama-el, by losing half of his name, becomes at the 
end of days, an angel of light, and, together with all that was 
cursed, returns to divine grace. A passage in the Yacna reads: 
“This unjust, this impure, this gloomy king who knows but evil, 
will say Avesta at the resurrection, and, fulfilling the law, he 
will establish it even in the dwelling of the damned (the 
derwands). (Zend Av., vol. II, p. 169.) The Bundehesh adds 
that at the same time Ormuzd and the seven first genii on one 
side, and Ahriman with an equal number of evil spirits on the 
other side, will be seen together offering a sacrifice to the Eternal, 
Zervane Akerene. (Zend Av., vol. III, p. 415). We shall add, 
finally, to all these metaphysical and religious ideas a very peculiar 
geographical system which is found with some slight variations in 
the Zohar and in the sacred books of the Parsees. According to 
the Zend Avesta (Vol. II, p. 70) and the Bundehesh (Zend Av., 
vol. III, p. 363) the earth is divided into seven parts (keshvars), 
which are watered by just as many great rivers, and separated 


50 Thomas Hyde, work cited, p. 296, 298, ch. XXII. 


vies hear be beArls Agr 301 


¢ 


from one another by the “water spilled in the beginning.” Each 
of these parts form a world in itself and supports inhabitants of 
different nature; some are black, some are white; these have their 
bodies covered with hair, like animals, the others differentiate 
themselves by some other more or less fantastic formation. 
Finally, only one of these great parts of the earth received the 
law of Zoroaster. 

Let us now have the view of the Kabbalists on the same 
subject. In quoting it, we shall confine ourselves to the role of 
a translator only. ‘When God created the world, he stretched 
above us seven heavens, and formed beneath our feet as many 
lands. He made also seven rivers, and set up the week of seven 
days. Now, as each of these heavens has its separate constellation 
and angels of a particular nature, so also have the lands here 
below. Placed one above the other, they are all inhabited, but 
by beings of different nature, as it was said of the heavens. 
Among the beings, some have two faces, some four, and others 
but one. They differ just as well in their color; some are red, 
some black and some white. ‘These have clothes, the others are 
naked like worms. If the objection be raised that all the inhabi- 
tants of the world descend from Adam, we ask if it is possible 
that Adam travelled in all these regions for the purpose of 
populating them with his children? How many wives did he 
have? But Adam lived only in that part of the earth which 
is the most elevated and which is enveloped by the higher 
heaven.”=! ‘The only difference that separates this opinion from 
that of the Parsees is that instead of considering the seven parts 
of the earth as natural divisions of the same surface, they represent 
them as enveloped one in another, like the layers of an onion 
py 1599 199 Sy 175K, as the text says. 


81 Zohar, part III, p. 9b, 10a, sect. 71>, Amsterdam ed. We 
consider it our duty to note here that the ideas do not follow one after 
the other in the text. We were obliged to omit many repetitions and 
digressions which were not only useless, but extremely wearisome and 
entirely too long. 


302 THE-~KA BBA DAH 


These are, in their full simplicity and without any systematical 
arrangement, the elements that constitute the common foundation 
of the Kabbalah and the religious ideas brought forth under the 
influence of the Zend Avesta. No matter how numerous and 
how important they may be, we would still retreat before the 
deduction that follows from this parallel if we had not found 
also in the sacred books of the Parsees all the heavenly and infernal 
mythology, part of the liturgy and even some of the most essential 
dogmas of Judaism. Nevertheless, God forbid that we accuse the 
Kabbalists of having been but servile imitators, of having adopted 
strange ideas and beliefs without examination or, at least, without 
modification, and of having confined themselves to clothing them 
with the authority of the sacred books. 

As a general rule there is no instance of a nation, no matter 
how strongly the influence of another nation may act upon it, 
giving up its true existence—the exercise of its inner faculties— 
and being content with a borrowed life, and if I may also say, with 
a borrowed soul. We can not possibly consider the Kabbalah as 
an isolated fact, as accidental in Judaism; on the contrary, it is 
its heart and life.52 For, while the Talmud took possession of 
all that relates to the outward practice and the material execution 
of the Law, the Kabbalah reserved for itself exclusively the 
domain of speculation and the most formidable problems of the 
natural and revealed theology. It was able, besides, to arouse 
the veneration of the people by showing inviolate respect for their 
gross beliefs, and in giving them to understand that their entire 
faith and cult rested upon a sublime mystery. By carrying the 
principle of the allegorical method to its last consequences, the 
Kabbalah had no need of trickery to accomplish this. 


52 The author should have added: “Judaism after the return from 
the Babylonian exile until the conclusion of the Talmud.” For the 
present-day Judaism the Kabbalah is an entirely strange element.24— 
Jellinek 

4 A rather unfortunate remark by the German translator. Can 
any one deny the preponderant influence of the Kabbalah upon Judaism 


during the Middle Ages, and even now through its direct descendant— 
Hassidism ?—Transl. 


THE KABBALAH 303 


We have also seen to what rank it has been raised by the 
Talmud, and what influence it exerted upon popular imagination. 
The sentiments it once instilled have remained to the days nearest 
to us; for it was by depending upon the Kabbalistic ideas that the 
modern Bar Kochba, Sabbathai Zebi, had disturbed for a while 
all the Jews of the world.5? The ideas also caused the liveliest 
agitation among the Jews of Hungary and Poland towards the 
close of the eighteenth century by giving birth to the sect of the 
Zoharites and Neo-Hassidim, and by leading thousands of 
Israelites into the bosom of Christianity. When we now consider 
the Kabbalah, per se, we can not help seeing therein an immense 
advance upon the theology of the Zend Avesta. Here, indeed, 
dualism is the cornerstone of the structure, although not as 
absolute as commonly thought, and although born as a principle 
in a religion which acknowledges one Supreme Being. Ormuzd 
and Ahriman alone exist in reality, with a divine character and 
with real power; while the Eternal, that limitless time from 
which both of them sprang, is, as we said, a pure abstraction. 
With the desire to relieve Him (the Eternal) of the responsibility 
for evil, the management of the world was taken from Him, and 
consequently all participation in good; nothing but a name with 
a shadow of existence was left to Him. But this is not all. All 
ideas relating to the invisible world, all the great principles of 
the human mind in the Zend Avesta, and in the later traditions 
connected with it, are still wrapped in a mythological veil through 
which they appear as visible realities and as distinct persons made 
in the image of man. 

The doctrine of the Kabbalists presents quite a different 
character. Here monotheism is the foundation, the basis and 
the principle of all; dualism and all other distinctions of whatever 
nature exist only formally, God alone, God, One and Supreme, 
is at once the cause, the substance and the intelligible essence, 


53 See Lacroix, Memoires de l’empire Ottoman, p. 259ff—Peter Beer, 
work cited, vol. Il, p. 260ff. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, Book IX, etc. 


304 TH KoA Bh Ata Ae 


the ideal form of all that is. Only between Being and Not-being, 
between the highest form and the lowest degree of existence is 
there an opposition, a dualism. ‘That one is light, this one is 
darkness. Darkness, therefore, is but a negation, and light, as 
we have shown several times, is the spiritual principle, the eternal 
wisdom, the infinite intelligence which creates all that it conceives, 
and conceives or thinks by its very existence. But if this be so, 
if it be true that at a certain height the being and the thought 
blend, then the great conceptions of the intelligence can not exist 
in mind alone, then they do not represent mere forms from which 
abstractions are made at will; on the contrary, they have a 
substantial and an absolute value, that is to say, they are 
inseparable from the eternal substance. This is precisely the 
character of the Sefiroth, of the Heavenly Man, of the Great 
and Small Face, in short, of all the Kabbalistic personifications 
which, as we see, differ greatly from the individual and 
mythological realizations of the Zend Avesta. 

The frame, the outline of the Zend Avesta, still remained the 
same, but the background completely changed its nature, and the 
Kabbalah offers, by its very birth, the peculiar spectacle of a 
mythology passing into the state of metaphysics under the very 
influence of religious sentiment. However, the system which was 
the fruit of that movement, does not belong as yet, notwithstanding 
such volume and depth, among the works where human reason 
makes free use of its rights and powers. Mysticism, per se, does 
not show itself there in the most elevated form, for it still remains 
chained to an external power—the revealed word. No doubt that 
this power is more apparent than real; undoubtedly also that 
allegory soon made of the sacred letter a compliant sign which 
expresses whatever one wishes, a docile instrument at the service 
of the mind and its most liberal inspirations. But it can not be 
denied that such a procedure—whether due to deliberation or to 
sincere illusion—this art of shielding mew ideas under some 
venerable text, is the sanctioning of fatal prejudice against true 
philosophy. Thus it is that the Kabbalah has a religious and 


Ua WO ACB BeAY TASH 305 


a national character, although born under the influence of a 
strange civilization, and notwithstanding the pantheism that 
underlies all its doctrines. 

By taking refuge, first under the authority of the Bible and 
then under the oral law, it retained all the appearances of a 
theological system, and especially of a Jewish theology. Before 
admitting it, therefore, into the history of philosophy and 
humanity, those appearances had to be wiped out and the Kabbalah 
had to be shown in its true light, that is to say as a natural 
product of the human mind. This course was accomplished, as 
we already said, slowly but surely, in the capital of the Ptolomeans. 
There, for the first time, the Hebrew traditions stepped over the 
threshold of the sanctuary, and mingling with many new ideas, 
but losing none of their own substance, they spread into the 
world. Desiring to recover a property which they considered 
their own, the guardians of these traditions welcomed ardently 
the most noble results of the Greek philosophy and mingled them 
more and more with their own beliefs. ‘The pretended heirs to 
the Greek civilization, on the other hand, became gradually 
accustomed to this mingling, and thought only of bringing it into 
an organized system where Reason and Intuition, Philosophy and 
Theology would be equally represented. ‘Thus it was that the 
‘Alexandrian school developed that brilliant and profound 
summary of all the philosophical and religious ideas of antiquity. 
Thus is explained the resemblance, yes, I dare say, the identity 
we have found in all the essential points or Neoplatonism and of 
the Kabbalah. But the Kabbalah having entered by this path 
the common ground of the human mind, was nevertheless 
transmitted among the Jews of Palestine in a small circle of the 
elite and was considered the secret of Israel. In this manner it 
was introduced into Europe, and in this manner it was taught until 
the publication of the Zohar. Here begins a new order of 
research, viz.: What influence did the Kabbalah exert upon the 
hermetic and mystic philosophy which attracted such attention 
from the beginning of the fifteenth to the end of the seventeenth 


306 LHe SPA Ba Ae ae 


century, of which Raymond Lullus may be considered the first, 
and Francis Mercurius van Helmont the last representative. “This 
may be the subject of a second work that will be considered 
perhaps as a complement to the present work. We believe, though, 
we have attained the aim we have set with reference to the 
Kabbalistic system proper, and we have only to point out in a 
quick recapitulation the results which we believe we have attained. 

1. The Kabbalah is not an imitation of the Platonic 
philosophy; for Plato was unknown in Palestine where the 
Kabbalistic system was founded. Furthermore, notwithstanding 
the several resembling traits which strike us at first glance, the 
two doctrines differ totally in the most important points. 

2. The Kabbalah is not an imitation of the Alexandrian 
school. First, because it antedates tiie Alexandrian school, and 
secondly because Judaism has always shown a profound aversion 
to and an ignorance of Greek civilization even when it raised the 
Kabbalah to the rank of divine revelation. 

3. The Kabbalah can not be regarded as the work of Philo, 
although the doctrines of the philosophical theologian contain a 
great number of Kabbalistic ideas. Philo could not transmit 
these ideas to his Palestinian compatriots without at the same 
time initiating them into the Greek philosophy. Because of the 
nature of his mind, Philo was not capable of founding a new 
doctrine. What is more, it is impossible to find in the monuments 
of Judaism the least trace of his influence. Finally, Philo’s 
writings are of more recent date than the Kabbalistic principles, 
the application as well as the substance of which we find in the 
Septuagint, in the Proverbs of Ben Sirach and in the Book of 
Wisdom. 

4. The Kabbalah has not been borrowed from Christianity, 
for all the great principles upon which it stands antedate the 
‘coming of Christ. 

5. The striking resemblances which we have found between 
this doctrine and the religious beliefs of the several sects of 
Persia, the numerous and odd relations which it presents to us 


eee eS ee 


DHE KABBALAH 307 


with the Zend Avesta, the traces that the religion of Zoroaster 
has left in all parts of Judaism, and the outward relations which 
existed between the Hebrews and their old teachers since the 
Babylonian captivity, force us to the conclusion that the materials 
of the Kabbalah were drawn from the theology of the ancient 
Persians. But we believe we have demonstrated at the same 
time that this loan did not destroy the originality of the Kabbalah; 
for the Kabbalah substituted the absolute unity of cause and 
substance for the dualism in God and in nature. Instead of 
explaining the formation of beings as an arbitrary act of two 
inimical forces, it presents them as divine forms, as successive 
and providential manifestations of the Infinite Intelligence. The 
ideas, finally, take in its bosom the place of realized personifica- 
tions, and the mythology is supplanted by metaphysics. ‘This 
seems to us to be the general law of the human mind. No 
absolute originality, but also no servile imitation from one nation 
and from one century to another. Whatever we may do to 
gain unlimited independence in the domain of moral science, the 
chain. of tradition will always show itself in our boldest dis- 
coveries; and no matter how motionless we sometimes appear to 
be under the sway of tradition and authority, our intelligence 
paves the way, our ideas change with the very power that weighs 
them down, and a revolution is about to break loose. 


APPENDIX 
( JELLINEK ) 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES ON THE ZOHAR 
7aN 
NAMES OF THE ZOHAR 


Jewish authors adopted preferably the three following names 
for the grand monument of the Kabbalah: 

1. ywnam (Midroshau)—his Midrash, or ’ | Sw wany 
osm ps piyow (Midrosh shel R. Simeon ben Yohai)—the 
Midrash of Simeon ben Yohai. Under this name the Zohar 
appears with the following authors: Behai (died 1340),! Com- 
mentary to the Pentateuch, section Mishpatim; R. Simeon ben 
Zemach Duran (died 1444), Responsa, vol. III, questions 56 and 
57; R. Meier ben Gabbai (born 1481), Abodath ha-Kodesh ;? 
R. Judah Moscato (died 1580), Nefuzat Yehudah (fol. 116b, 
21la). This name guarantees the genuineness of the work. 

2. IN 7) watp (Midrash Y’hi Or)—Midrash Let There 
be Light. So named by Abraham ben Samuel Zacuto (flourished 
1502) in his “Sefer ha-Yuhasin” under %“3yw5, and by Hayim 
Joseph David Azulai (died 1807) in his “Shem ha-G’dolim,” 





1 Behai (Bahya) ben Asher ben Halevi. Not to be confounded with 
the well known philosopher Behai ben Joseph ibn Pakuda of the 
eleventh century, author of “Hoboth Halvovoth (n1233n n121n).—Transl. 

sae Cmced in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Listed in “Seder Hadoreth.” 
—Transl. 


308 


THE KABBALAH 309 


vol. II, fol. 49b. The probable reason for adopting this title by 
these authors is to be found in the fact that a few manuscripts of 
the Zohar begin with the commentary to the verse3}~ »4:—Let 
there be Light (Gen. 1, 3); or, what is more probable, to point 
out the illumination that is bound to accrue to the reader of 
this work. 

3. ant (Zohar), Splendor, Brightness. So called according 
to Daniel XII, 3.) poypan snr yn oS:swony—And the 
Wise shall shine as the Brightness of the firmament. Compare 
xsornp xy Zohar, vol. III, fol. 64a in the Sulzbach edition.® 
This last name has become the predominating one since the author 
of “Yuhasin” in 1502. 


B 


EDITIONS OF THE ZOHAR 


1. The first edition of the Zohar was published by R. Meier 
ben Ephraim and Jacob ben Naftali at Mantua in 1560. 3 vol. 4°. 

2. In the same year it was again published in folio at 
Cremona. ‘The preface to this edition, written by Yitzhak de 
Lattes, dates from 1558 to which the 1B, my ANY points. 

3. According to R. Yisahar Beer (9392 ‘x, end of preface. 
Compare also Bartolocci, Magna Bibliotheca Rabbinica, vol. IV, 
p. 446) an edition of the Zohar appeared also at Venice. 

4, Levi ben Kalonymos published a folio edition of the 
Zohar at Lublin in 1623. In this edition the numbering of the 
pages is the same as in that of the Cremona edition. Von Rosenroth 
considers this edition very faulty. 

5. The last named scholar had a Zohar printed, also folio, 
at Sulzbach in 1684. 

6. Another edition, patterned after the Mantua edition, 
appeared at Amsterdam in 1714. 

8 The passage quoted from sin'nb x5 refutes also Milsahagis 


nae7 , fol. 20b) contention about the genesis of this mame, and 
justifies Zunz’s (Sermons, p. 406) explanation,—Jellinek 


310 le HE Se KAT BADE deren 


7. An edition printed at Constantinople in 1736 (Molitor, 
vol. I, p. 76). 

8. Another edition at Amsterdam in 1805. 

9. Milsahagi, author of 7°“aN7 1pD quotes also a Salonica 
edition. 

Editions 2, 4 and 5, because printed in folio, are usually 
called 5y99 snr (Zohar Godaul—Large Zohar); the others, 
because printed in quarto, are designated jpp cp} (Zohar Kotaun 
—Small Zohar). 


C 


ELEMENTS OF THE ZOHAR 
Besides the 


1. Zohar (11) proper which serves as commentary to the 
Pentateuch, this. work contains also: 
Sifra d-Zeniuta (Book of Mystery), 
Idra Rabba (Great Assembly), 
Idra Zutah (Small Assembly), 
Saba (The old man), 
Midrash Ruth* (fragments only), 
Sefer ha-Bahir (Book of Brightness), 
Tosefta (Addendum), 
Raya Mehemna (The Faithful Shepherd), 
Hekalot (Palaces), 
11. Sitra Torah (The mysteries of the Law), 
12. Midrash ha Ne’elam (The hidden Midrash), 
13. Razi di Razin (Mystery of Mysteries), 
14. Midrash Hassid (Midrash to Song of Songs), 
15. Maamar Ta-Hazee (Treatise which begins with “come 
and see.”’), 
16. Yanuka (Boy), 
17. Pakuda (Explanation of the Law), 


ol 
ee echo tote Ged manga te 





# I know of no reason why this Midrash was named after the Book 
of Ruth.—Jellinek 


THE KABBALAH 311 


18. Hibbura Kadma-ah (Previous Work), 
19, Mathnithin (Doctrines). 
All these elements are to be found in the Sulzbach edition; 
the Mantua edition contains only Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12.5 


D 


‘TRANSLATIONS OF THE ZOHAR 


1. A Hebrew translation of the Zohar (manuscript), written 
in 1506, from section ny “nN to the end of the work and bearing 
the title ni“ayn Nini is in possession of S. D. Luzatto, professor 
at the Rabbinic College at Padua. Compare the Hebrew Year 
Book sin on5 (Prague, Landau 8.) VII, 79. 

2. Zevi Hirsch ben Yerachmiel of Krakau in his book 
voy nono (Frankfort O. M. 1711), translated into Jargon some 
fragments of the Zohar. Wolf, B. H. I. 999. 

3. The “Book of Mysteries,” the Idra Rabba and the Idra 
Zutah were translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second 
volume of his “Kabbalah denudata.” 

4. Several fragments of the Zohar have been translated into 
French by the author of this book, and by the translator into 

5. German.® 


5 Wolf (Bibliotheca hebraea I, 1141) is mistaken when he adds, 
after counting the Nni}v)s7 81D among the elements of. the Cremona 
edition, the following: Mantuana vero quatuor tantum ex his exhibet, 
nempe; Tosaphta, Medrash Neelam, Raja Mahemena, et Sitre Tora. 
—Jellinek 

6 And into English by the present translator. 

For those wishing to go deeper into the study of the Kabbalah or 
of the Zohar in particular I append here a list of translations of the 
whole or part of the Zohar, literature on the Zohar and commentaries 


on the Zohar.~Transl, 


TRANSLATIONS 


ENGLISH: 


1 Kabbala denudata. The Kabbalah unveiled. Containing the 
following books of the Zohar: 1. The Book of Concealed Mystery. 
2. The Greater Holy Assembly. Translated into English from the Latin 
version of Knorr von Rosenroth by S. L. M. Mathers. London 1887, 
359.0. Se 

2 Qabbalah. Quotations from the Zohar and other writings. Treat- 
ing of the Qabbalistic or Divine Philosophy. By Isaac Myer, LL.B. 
Reprinted from Oriental Review 1893. 7 p. 

3 Scattered passages may be found in the Theosophical! literature, as 
in Isis Unveiled by Blavatsky and in the “Word” a theosophical publi- 
cation. 

4 The Sepher Ha-Zohar; or the Book of Light. By Nurko de 
Manhar. An English translation of the Zohar from Section Genesis 
to Section Lekh Lekah. In “the Word,” a theosophical publication; 
vols. 5 to 17; 1907-1913. 


FRENCH: 


1 Sepher ha-Zohar. (Le livre de la _ splendeur.) Doctrine 
Esoterique Des Israelites. ‘Traduit pour la premiére fois sur le texte 
chaldaique et accompagné de notes par Jean De Pauly. Oeuvre posthume 
entiérement revue corrigée et completée. Publiée par... Emile Lafuma- 
Giraud. 8°. v. 6. Paris 1906-1912. 

2 Le Zohar; traduction francaise de Henri Chateau, avec lettre- 
préface de Papus. Paris 1895, 210 p. 8°. 

3 Paul Vulliaud. La Kabbala Juive Histoire et Doctrine. Tome 
Second. 

Chapitre XVII. Comment il faut lire le “Sepher ha-Zohar. p. 111-136. 

4 Albert Jounet, La Clef Du Zohar. 231 p. Paris 1909. 


GERMAN: 


1 Selected passages from the Zohar in the yearbook “Vom Judentum” 
(Bergman, Mueller) as well as'in the periodicals “Der Jude” 1916- 
1920 (Mueller, Seidman) and “Freie Lebensstimme,” 1919 (Fiebig). 

2 Seidman, Jankew. Aus dem heiligen Buche Sohar. Eine Auswahl. 
Berlin 1920. 

3 Tholuck, Wichtige Stellen des rabbinischen Buches Sohar. Berlia 
1824. / 


312 


THE KABBALAH 313 


4 Die juedische Mystik und Kabbala. Von Dr. Philipp Bloch. 
Der Sohar, der Abschluss der Kabbala, p. 270-282 (In “Die Juedische 
Literatur” edited by Winter and Wunsche. Vol, III.) 

5 Stern, Ignatz. Versuch einer umstaendlichen Analyse des Sohar. 
“Ben Chananya” Monthly for Jewish Theology. p. 1-111. Years 1858- 
1860. 


HEBREW: 


Rosenberg, Yudel. itt 5D : 
Zeitlin, Hillel. nin "BD? mnpD In the “Hat’kufa” pgs. 314-334. 


YIDDISH : 


Setzer, S. In the “Wort” 1921-1925. 

LITERATURE AND COMMENTARIES ON THE ZOHAR 

1 §. Karppe. Etude sur les Origines et la Nature du Zohar. Paris 
1901. p. 604, 8°. 

2 Levi, E. Le Livre des Splendeurs. Paris 1894, p. 333. 8°. 

3 Bischoff, Erich, Die Elemente der Kabbalah; Uebersetzungen, 
Erlaeuterungen und Abhandlungen. (Geheime Wissenschaften) 1. 
Theoretische Kabbalah. 2. Praktische Kabbalah. Berlin 1913. 8°. 

4 Gewurz, Elias. The hidden treasures of the Ancient Kabbalah. 
Chicago, 1918. IV. 16°. 

5 Ginsburg, Christian David. The Kabbalah. Its doctrines, 
development and literature. London 1865. 163p. 8°. 

6 Langer, George. Die Erotik der Kabbala. Prag 1923, 167p. 8°. 

7 Misses, Isaac. Darstellung und_ kritische Beleuchtung der 
juedischen Geheimlehee. Heft 1-2. Krakau 1862-63—2pts. in IV. 8°. 

8 Pick, Bernard. The Zohar and its influence on the Cabala. 
Open Ceurt. 24 (1910). 233-243. 

8 Waite, Arthur Edmund. The doctrine and literature of the 
Kabbalah. London 1902. 508p. 8°. 

: 10 Waite, A. E. The secret doctrine in Israel; a study of the Zohar 
and its connections, London 1913. 329 p. 8°. 

11 Westcott, Lynn. Introduction to the Kabbalah. 

12 Buzazla, S. 1niIn ’D Sy %B 49m wipD’o Przemysl, 1871-80. 3pt. 
in IV. 8° 

13 Lurie, D. amin oy nimany oe 9999 317 we? ‘Db, Wilna 1882, 

14 Mueller, Ernst. Der Sohar und seine Lehre. Einleitung in die 
Gedankenwelt der Kabbalah. Wien 1920, 79p. 8°. (See “Textproben” 

. 63-79. 

4 15 eh. Hugo. Die Heiligung des Namens. In the Year Book 
“Yom Judentum,” Leipzig, 1913, and in “Jawne and Jerusalem.” Berlin 
1919: 

16 Landauer M. H. “Vorlaeufiger Bericht ueber meine Entdeck- 
ungen in Ansehung des Sohar” and appendix thereto. “Titeraturblatt 
des Orients,” 1845. 

17 Sellin. Die Geisteswissenschaftliche Bedeutung des Sohar. 
Berlin 1913. : - ; 

18 Siener, Meir. Die Lyrik der Kabbalah. Eine Antalogie. Wien 
1920. 


314 Pei ASB ak reed 


19 Bloch, Geschichte und Entwickelung der Kabbala. Trier 1894. 
20 Azulai, 18°P2 (MYRID) TIT 9Y WIV Nw Aon Ar ’o 

21 Luzzato, Samuel David, 117 3"’¥ Any 

22 Kunitz, Moses. *xn1? 12. Wien 1815. 

23 Langer, M, D. George. Die Erotik der Kabbala. p. 167. Prag 1923. 


LITERATURE ON THE BOOK OF FORMATION 
(SEFER YETZIRAH) 


1 Castelli. Il Commento di Sabbatai Donnolo, Florence 1880, 

2 Postell. Abraham Patriarchae Liber Iezirah, Paris 1552. 

3 Pistor. Liber Iezirah, in Ars Cabalistica, Basel 1557. 

4 Rittangel in the Amsterdam edition of 1642. 

5 non ..DmB NNO ...m132 NMDIID wINnD Wipel Wy ... AyD 
oyrixy Philadelphia 1895. 

6 WN? NY ,W39PSIIT 19993 (72 ATW 7 RWI BS AIX TH wy B 
py ONDwoyaoNn on yoot mDosw MAXd Nyy) ny NII OY 39” WN AWN 
VINOD NP TW mp nippy nvyn Berlin 1885. 354p. 

7 Benjacob, o DD WVI8, pp. 228-229. 

8 Rosenthal in Sxnw* nDI2 ~v. 2 pp. 29-68. 

9 ywroxp AST IT .nsaa8} Maya jy’ ’D. New York 1877. This 
is the Hebrew title page of the book by the same author mentioned 
later on. 

10 S,. Bernfeld, on98 nys,, pp. 106-110, Warsaw 1897. 

12 op/Spn JyyoRp .paDD "7B BY MIS) TDD 

12 sry95s 75 “Pw VID 327 WAN 9B ,D wea Awoen DY JAY? WoO 

270N ATVADY? UNIO AVOR PNA JIA AWD “1 Uk UD 
13° y/Sbn JYYINP .pYBDD "B OY AI) TO 

14 YSN .BYIDIWRINDIND PrOwPY 9 TIVO OMIM 19 AY IBD 

15 Ayowo (AND DON NON RN) OYMINA 28 IN BR DIN ANY’ SBD 

mon wou (ney nsw Inwn) pars mpSyw 775 nNp bp IB 

16 Sepher Ietzirah (f7°¥" 15D), traduction du livre cabalistique de 
la creation. Calomira de Cimara, Paris 1913. 

17 Epstein, A. Recherches sur le Sefer Yecira. Versailles 1894. 35p. 

18 Commentaire sur le Sefer Yesira du Livre de la Création par 
Le Gaon Saadya De Fayyoum. Publié et traduit par Mayer Lambert, 
Paris 1891. 128p. 

19 §. Karppe, Etude sur les Origines et la Nature du Zohar. (Le 
Sefer Yezirah, pp. 139-168). 

20 Ad. Franck, La Kabbale, pp. 103-119. Paris 1892. (See also 
German translation by Jellinek pp. 57-65.) 

21 Paul Vulliand, La Kabbale Juive, Le Sepher lIetsirah, V. I 
Chap. 6, pp. 195-220. 

22 Papus, La Cabbale. ‘Troisiéme Partie. Le Sefer Ietzirah, pp. 
175-235. Paris 1903. 

23 Charles-M. Limousin, La Kabbale Litterale Occidentale. Les 
32 Voiés de la Sagesse du “Sefer Ietzirah.” Paris. 

24 mney? app Sepher Yetzira, the book of Formation and the Thirty- 
two paths of wisdom. ‘Translated from the Hebrew ... by W. W. 
Westcott. Bath 1887, 29p. 

25 myyyy 1pD, The Book of Formation (Sepher Yetzirah) by Rabbi 
Akiba Ben Joseph, translated by Kunt Stenring; with an introduction 


ee a ee 





pie He trek AC BoB AS ALH aio 


by Arthur Edward Waite. London 1923, 66p. 

26 J. Abelson. Jewish Mysticism. Chap. V. The Book Yetsirah. 
pp. 98-116. London 1913. 

27 Kalish, I. A Sketch of the Talmud. New York 1887. 

28 Maurice Fluegel, Philosophy, Qabbala and Vedanta. Chap. V, 
Yetzirah. Book of Creation, pp. 136-152. Baltimore 1902. 

29 H. Sperling, Jewish Mysticism, in Simon’s “Aspects of the Hebrew 
Genius”, pp. 145-176. 

30 Mordell, Phineas, Origin of the Letters and Numerals in Sefer 
Yetzirah. In Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 2 New Series pp. 557-583; 
Vol. 3 N. S. pp. 517-544. 

31 Ginsburg, C. D. The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines, Development and 
Literature, pp. 65-75. 

382 Der Buch Yezira . .. Nebst den zweyunddreyssig Wegen der 
Weisheit. Hebraeisch und Deutsch, mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen und 
einem Glossarium. WHersg. von J. V. Meyer, Leipzig 1830, 36. 

33 mys: ‘Dd, Das Buch der Schoepfung. Kritisch redigirter Text, 
nebst Uebersetzung, Varianten, Amerkungen, Erklaerungen und einer 
Einleitung von L. Goldschmidt. Frankfurt, 1894. 92p. 

34 Greatz, H. Gnosticismua und Judentum, Breslau 1846. pp. 
102-132. 

35 Dr. Philip Bloch, Die Juedische Mystik und Kabbala. In the 
“Juedische Litteratur” edited by Sinter and Wuensche, Vol. 3, pp. 240-248. 

36 Z. Epstein. Studien zum Yezira-Buche und seinen Erklaeren. I. 
Die beiden Versionen des Jezira-Buches. pp. 266-269; II. Der Text 
Donnolo’s und II Mantua, pp. 458-462. In Monatsschrift fuer Ge- 
schichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. 37, p. 186. 

87 A. Epstein, Pseudo-Saadja’s und Elasar Rokeah’s Commentare 
zum  Jezira-Buche. Die Recension Saadja’s pp. 75-78, 117-120. In 
Monats- fuer. G. u:-W. d.-J.) v.37. 1893. 

38 Erich Bischoff, Die Elemente der Kabbalah. Das Buch Jezirah, 
pp. 63-80. Berlin 1913. 

' 89 Jellinek, Adolph, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Kabbalah. 
‘ Jezirah pp. 3-18. Leipzig 1913. 

40 D. H. Joel, anim w15, Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar. 
Analyse des Sefer Jezirah, pp. 75-77. 

41 A. Epstein, Besprechung, 1s? 155,, Das Buch der Schoepfung 
von Lazarus Goldschmidt. In Monatsschrift fuer Gesch. u. Wiss. d. 
Jud. v. 39, pp. 46-48, 134-136. 

42 Fuerst, Bibl. Jud. I, 27-28. 

48 Bacher, Die Anfaenge der Hebraeischen Grammatik, pp. 20-23. 
Leipzig 1895. 

44 Zedner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. p. 13. 

45 M. Steinschneider, Pseudo-Saadia’s Commentar zum _ Buche 
Jezira. In Berliner’s Magazin, v. 19, pp. 79-85. 

46 M. Steinschneider, in Cat. Bodl. cols. 552-554. ; 

47 Neumark, David, Geschichte der Juedischen Philosophie des 
Mittelalters, Kabbala, 170-236. 


a 


ty a. 
=> 





INDEX 





INDEX 


Page 
A 


Abraham, as the author of the 
Sefer Yetzirah__note 9, p. 82; 83, 125 
Abraham ben Dior (David), 
See Dior, Abraham ben 


Arata toni Mirra LVIII 
Abravanel,- Juda io) XXXVIII 
etiOiee World 6 OL. 105 


Adam Kadmon (Celestial Man— 
Heavenly Man)-_..106, 138, 148, 152 
190, 264, 279, 296 


mcase berrestrial 2.0 190,279 
Agrippa, Cornelius —..XXVIII,XXXVI 
gt 7 hE er aera eek 67, 68 
Anriimanes see note, 9) p.):287 
Ja ISTO PY, @ ito dente SSE tk pO NO as, Sad 64, 67 
as probable author of the 
Serer ovetriral oe 84 
FNS eo a te SNS SE Ee ad es 299 
Alexandrian Jews and Palestine.......221 
Alexandrian School and the 
BETES Cf iach ita Se ERTS PRR Se 221f 
AV ie Gazza lias eee ete oe nee eee 104 
Aili eee SOR Se ee eee TVA 
Alphabet, celestial. 2) 182 
changing letters of—, See 
Ath-Bash ; 
of R. Akiba, See Otiot 
de Rabba Akiba; 

Source of letters of—,........ 282 
imei ee. 64 
Ammonme Saccas) 2 120 
Ammonius, School of—and School 

of Simeon ben: Yohaie 177 
Anatomy, modern in the Zohar-_....118 © 
Netw eit n Aa oes ea 158, 159 
Ancierit of Ancients_.__... 146, 159, 160 
Andsogyne of Plato 197 


Aiea eee 187 
Angels, names of— representing 


Moral cualiticaes = 185 

Si palcern es eee 186 

Philo’s conception of........-.. 248, 251 

Source or names’ of n2Ge 
Anthropomorphism in the Kab- 

bait. a ovat he 145, 148 

in the: pepnirothas 160 


Avoided in the Septuagint-.......263 
**Ari,” see Luria, Isaac 
Aristotelian Philosophy not found 

in the Zohar 
ArtpGreatw ee ee 59, O,4 
Asceticism, as shown by Philo 252, 257 
Asia, as the cradle of the Kabbalah_..271 


Page 
Assembly, the Great (Idra 

Babia here een eee 109, 145 
the’ heavenly oS oN Sn ee 268 
the Lesser (Idra Zutah)_.___ 109, 145 
Astrology, notes Te 982 

Astronomy, proable source of— 
winning POW Sg Fee ae 282 
Ath) Dash ico ee ee note 33, p. 75 
Attributes, expansive 170 
Oe rensvancew. rss Sea TAL 
petite tithe et oon tea fs Peas 171 
Avicena, note 41, p. 1013103 
Aves athae- (Avatar yoo oe) ee. 278 
AWE ANCA Loves oe ee ar 202 
Ayn Sof, note 33, p. 99, 159, 234 


as the totality of the Sefiroth 155 
and the theology of the Magi-...294 


Teasomy jou Calling. = ee 149 
accoraipetom blaton ee 216 
B 

Babylonian Captivity, Effects of— 

LipOnerthe a) CWSs = eee 282 
apivene RANDt a. 2 ee LVIII 
Balance ag the meres ee eee 174 
iBardesanesy et ete ee 101, 276 
IBAELOLOCCIMeee tee ee ea XXX 
STIS AG 1G eaten ete eee ts eee 165 
Bastia pie nee wee ol ee XVI, XXX 
a tir gees re eee a eee Dee VII 
SIS CARL ee ae as Oe er eee eee 187 
Beauty, as the expression of all 

moral qualities 165, 167, 168, 193 
Beheshteinotems 02 een a 2 ee 287 
“Beliefs and Opinions,” note 8, LVIII 
HRetaithay dehnition of 65 
Rerveriin an hie too Lee ee XVI 
Bible, the—and its method of 

explaining the world ~~. 124 


and contemporary philosophies XVIII 
Boehm, )2cop.— = XXVIII, 180 
Botril, Moses, his commentary to 
the. Sefer Vetzirah=(2 > = 83 
his views on the Kabbalah 115 
Brightness, Book of—See Zohar 


Briuckers. eee XVI ee 
Buddeus_____-- XVI, XVII, note 9, XXX 
Rindehesh wae ee eee 288 
Burnette ee ee XXX 
GC 
LY OMEN itt pale Spat oa i ee ie Sd 171 
Cardinal points, the four-..------------ 131 
CGausecois Gases =e ee ee 178 


319 


INDEX 


Page 
Chaldean, Persians and the Kab- 
alah 2 ee a ieee 215f 
Chariot, Heavenly, see Merkaba 
of Ezekiel, figures of-..----...----. 21Ss. 
Chiite ee cos eee ee eee LV 


Choice, free—according to Philo. 254 
Christianity, and the Kabbalah._.L, 213 
dogmas of—according 


tO Reuchlinwss ae eee XXXV 
not mentioned in the Zohar..97, 114 
Sects hinw ote cae eee 55 
Clement of Alexandria__......._----.-...101 
Codex: Nazarets (oe ee e276 
“Column,” the middlag ee LES 
Ofjijudgmente ee I 
of mercy Goth: Re 8 
rat dr) Spe atk LAUR Mioaka stata No WBE 171 
|e § ape atic Bs Lice Leds Ea el EIR ak ts 171 
Cette ye es ee te ees 
Completion;4anutial) = 261 
Concentration (Tsimtsum) ----...---- 157 
Copernic, theory of—in the 
LORAT ae eae ae a 94, 116, 156 
ingtheshalmud See ee ee ee D7 
known before his times. RSet: 
Cordovero, Moses, 
(Corduero) note 2, XXIX, 96 
his explanation of the 3 
nrstiSehrotuer ee eee 163 
Cosmology of the Kabbalah, 
ite DFINneIOled cise eee ees 176 
Creation 
story 0h ool ee 64 7S, ang 
WOLIGUO heen een ee ae eee 105 
world of—as the seat of 
the chicfanze) As eee 185 
Cross, in the Old Testament, 
according to Reuchli_n—_-- >,O.O.G2 
Crown theses eee ee 157, 167, 168 
Supremes ee note 33; p. 99 
Customs, religious, among Jews 
atid sParsees, pe ee a eee 292 


Cuzari, of Judah ha-Levi__note 7, p. 126 


D 

Warwands ess eee note 11, p. 287 
“De WArte UCabalistica a XX XIII 
Deathwanwel sore te ee eer eee 207 
NO tPA TCUTSe me ee ee eee 208 
ordealsmatteriy 2 ee ee 291 
Dekas (cult "ore ee XXXIV 
Delight;) carden Of. ee 67 
Démitirge Ge oe ee ee ee ee 234, 242 
Demonology____.---__. 183, 184, 187, 288 
Demoris wee ee ee ena eae eee 176 
Desire, good and bad__..- 139, 185, 300 
“De Verbo Meri fico’... XXXIT 

Summary of Con- 
tents. note 18, p. XXXIII 
Devils, view of Talmud on__... 289 
Devise) ee eee _note 10, p. 287 
Dar eee Oe eee ee ener eres 299 
“Dimyon,” (Image) eer te wees LAD 
Dionysius the Aero- -Phagite____ wee 272 


Dior, Abraham ben__note 17, p. XXXII 


Doctrine, secret 
evidence. of \ eee 











Doctors, of Mishnah_...__§_______112 
of Kabbalah Behan 2S, 112 
Duozakhs ote tae een 
Dyan), ee ee 
E 
Earth, division of—according to 
the Zend Avesta Se oe 
according to the Zohar__.__.___.301 
Ecclesiasti¢us 22. eee 
Eden; higher (0S eee 101 
celestial (2. eee 
Elements, the four. ea 
Elishah ben Abuah, see Aher 
Elxai a eee 101; note 13, p. 274 
Emanation, doctrine of among Arabs_102 
in the Sefer Yetzirah._______.131 








world® of 2 105) 106 paren 
“Egyptian Mysteries” —._-________237 
“Eincylical® Science, 4.2 252 
Entrmeration, abstract 22 = ae 128 
Essenes 3G2305 1) 2 a ee Gee 
Exile, Babylonian, its influence 
upon the. Jews. ae 
Ezekiel, vision of—in relation 
to'the: Kabbalah.) ee ae 
Ezra) oe 
F 
Face, in the Zohar eee 
inner: 620 8 ee eis 
outer 422 Se ee ee ee 203 
long ji 1 alo ee 
47, 159 
white: 22 eee BeOS Ss 
Paces 2-2 ee ee eee 
Faith, according to, Philo2 ee 


“Faithful Shepherd,”’__note 1, p. 78, 92 
Fall and Rehabilitation, 











Idea of—in the Zohar___._____._171 
*‘Father,” excellent ~~ 278 
Feeling, world) of. 2 a ee 166 
Fenelon and Simeon ben Yohai_... 205 
““Ferouer’ - 2 et ee eee 
“Fetahill® 4. oe 
Formation, Book of—See Sefer Yetzirah 

world: of 22 eee “F105 
world of—as the seat’ of 

the angels MRL EK 

‘Roundation... eee 

Fludd ,Robert -XXVIII 

Frank, Jacob — 272 





G 


Gahambars, the: six, 22 ee 
Gamaliel {202 ee 
““Garment’”’ 
Gedaliah, R. 
Author of ‘Chain of Traditon” 3 
his opinion on the authority of 
the Zohar = 
Gemara.._._ 


period of 





_note 3, p. 64 
91 


es 








320 


INDEX 


Page 
Gematriah, note 9, p. 143; note 11, p. 180 
Genesis, story of—see Creation, 
Gerson, his conception of 


Pea R is th ee rer aes st es a ee TV 
REStALLON ee eeses Se Ri sd be 202 
Gikatilla, Joseph. See Joseph 

of Castille 
AGISSCLer mere metas euees © EE Le XVI 
BOTY mummers sues tems ce 1 OS 165 
Gnosticism and the elements 
aH themivabbalahts toe 101 

od, 


as conceived by Philo__245, 246, 253 
and the world, according 

Tots 12d cet oy Peed Ae ysthee Mam teA ter ee eee 258 
names of_.__69, 100, 126, 148, 150 
devefopment of the Kabbalistic 


view on the nature of 151 
two ways of speaking of ___....145 
as considered in the 

merervetziral a. 2) it ee et 137 

Gocgmanterivilee. so we ae 199 
Good, the reversibility of—Philo_...255 
Gototman se. ee note 11, p. 287 
NOT CERIN a sete ee OS hs 164 

SCCORGINGTtOP Nilo meee 255 
Grave, tortures of the... 291 
Greek learning, interdiction of-.-.-..--- 226 


meaning of 

note 37, p. 230 
Perplexed,” 

note 8, p. LVIII 


Greek Science, 


“Guide for the 


H 
Hageadah-) XLV; note a, p. 124 
SG bclibd loss 0) Meee es AE Vis note asup. 124 


Hamunah the Elder. note Peps: Pe 
Harmony, in the Sefiroth_......__._____. 


Head, the: white-25 T5Sensi7. ae 
Heads of Captivity. ae ee om 285 
Hegel, philosophy of—and the 
Peavinlahien seo a 139, .158 
school of—and the Kabalah_XLIX 
Deitel pee ee Iss 
“Hellenizing J pe ae OR _LVIII 
Ppetmoatem yan a 306 
Herrera, Abraham Cohen 


note 10, p. XXX; XLIT 
Hillel, the Aged (Babylonian) 
75,222, 286 


STi vale ie appt pee 65 
PT ONG UCr Sete mea tes es Se 294 
Human Being, elements of_-.--...-- 193 
Pw crmlratveaa tee see 197 
Human nature, as the image 
6.0 9 Leo lie Se ee 196 
PER Venn er bi) a8 St 0 ae ee XXX 
I 
nia eh Sho 2. 0 157, 162 
ol ONT Sa Qe BG bene SY 162 
and its Hindoo equivalent._.X VIII 
iden wlOretnen pod yn eee. ss 193 


Ideal, as expressed in the Sefiroth...166 
draw Rabbavtes 2s Bes Oe ule 109, 145 


Pag 
Idra Zutah....109, note 1, p. 145, 152, 188 
inane yeas. ‘LVI 
Immortality, not “definitely “mentioned 
in the Old Testament note 1, p. 189 


Imipregmagen. 212.204 2 oe. 202 
Infinite, see Ayn Sof 
Intelect, in relation to religion 
ang (dogitiay <3 lpses a ee LIIl 
dpteliizence so 99, 159 
WU OTICLMOE yen ts ee eee eer 166, 274 
Intuition and Reflection... 204 
Gvenaeds hee a a 101 
Tad: dé. Lattess ie i 86 
Isaiah, as the source of the 
mythological system —._.._.__. sed WAS) 
WE OW I eee 2 eee 162 
J 
Jeba, the Elder__.._._. note 1, p. 78, 115 
Jehovah, as understood by the 
LOMAY Ok: Bieta ee ye een, 162 
Reuchlin’s analysis of 
the: word 2222 Ses XXXIV 
Jesus, Reuchlin’s Kabbalistic 


interpretation of the word 
XXV, XXXVI 
Wesust; ben -Sirachiee ee eek ee 267 
Job, Book of—as the source of the 
mythological system of the Kab- 
allah chen A unui s bee eae 123, 283 
Jonathan ben Uziel, translation of... 75 


fose the) Hider 2) se note 1, p. 78 
Joseph of Castille_....XX XI, XX XVIII 
Josephus) == ee 76, 224, 225 


Juda-ha-Levi, his opinion on the 
Sefer Yet'zirah 
Juda _ ha-Nassi, 
Mishnah 


editor of the 
LVII, 64, 119 
LVII 


Wudaism. | sects: We ee 
rabbinical—and Parseeism —..288 
Wud giMent a kek ees sa 164,. 193 
according to Philo... 250 
Column1ot eee ala! 
K 
“Kabbala Denudata,” 
(Kabbalah Unveiled) 
sey Sees ae 
Budde’s opinion of the .-__ 
He! Of: these eee SUL LIE 
Kabbala 
and conception of Ahriman..____.300 
and Gnosticism ----.----.------ 101, 272 


and Masorah.---- note 1, p. XXVIT 
and Neoplatonism- med eiteae aly, 233 
and Pythagorean Doctrine. XXXII 
and the Philosophy of the 


Aves + ee 101, 103 
and Arabic Mysticism_—-----.— _104 
and the ‘Talmud => 303 
and the Zend Avesta._301, 302, 303 
antiquity of, the 2 63, 72 
antiquity of the __-_.63, TZ 
as the heart and life of 

Judaism ———_—__-__-___-—_— 302 


321 


INDEX 


Page 

Christiano. joe a a6 

Difficulty in studying the XXVIII 
and other great philosophies 





and religious systems—________139 
development of the_..__.__ 113, 116 
doctrine of the—and doctrine 

of the Nazarenes__.___.__.101, 277 
doctrine of the—uniting Plato 

and VSpinezs i 16s 
elements of the_____._.____209 
etymology and orthography of 

the word.____note 1, p. XX VII 
final conclusions on the roree 
and), Gnosticism | 02 wrt 


influence of the TER VEIL 
introduction of the— 
into Europe _____X XI, 108, 305 





method of studying the... 67 
Oriental wisdom and__._ 104 
practical yo to eae 
principles of—antedote 

Chrishanty 2 cue ee are 


reasons for the study of__XXVII 
relation of the—to the 

philosophy of Plato__......._.213f 
relation of the—to the 

doctrine of Philo. 239f, 259, 305 
relation of the—to the 

religion of the Chaldeans 





and Persians__.___ _282f, 306 
relation of the—to 

Christianity.) oa ee ee Ee 
relation of the—to the 

School of Alexandria _...____.__.220f 
sources of the _.___._ XVI,XLVIT 
Symbolica (22 oitsk es eae On XVII 
systems resembling the —_ HA2131 
secrecy of the—,its cause... XIX 


“‘Kabbalism and Pantheism’’______ XLIX 


Kabbalistic Books... 7B 
general Character of 123 
schools, 27 hi XXIV, XXXT 
systems, sources drawn by 
writers of philosophy_____.._XX 
system, an oral as well as 2 
written tradition__.___._______.116 
Kabbalistic 
system. did not originate 
in \Platonism | 0. SE 2ASZ19 
system, and the dogmas of 
the Nazarenes __,..._______..276 


tradition in the Septuagint _ 265 











tree. ____-note 70, p. 170, 171 
Kabbalists 
and Esgenes ___. PS LT6 
who converted themselves 
to! Christianity) 4 71 
‘Marat sj oucd ue Pe Ce Ey 
KRarmates twice seek ci eee 
Redars tice a Wi ie Get el Poe 209 
owing, the) 2 ee Oat lae 
Rings, Ancient)? 27ers 72 
“Kingdom” __.______.__.__166, 167, 192 
Rischrieg ou oe eo as XXXVI 


his view on the Kabbalah... XL 





Page 

"Kisses of (God) 22 ee eens 
Kleuker —..__ neds PTY XVI 
Knowledge, four kinds ‘of, note 8 p. LViLt 
or Science in the ’Sefiroth tele _160 


note 8, p. LVIIJ 
Kruspedi, Rabbi_.........note 1, p. 78 


L 


Lang; Joachim 2. Soe 

Letters, the 22, and numbers as 
the foundation of the Universe__133 
their division into 3 classes 134 





Liberty 
personal 02 eee Oe 20G 
according to Philo____________§___.254 
ay the Hebrew, see Abravanel, Judah 
ife, 


as considered by Philo__256, 260 
as reviewed by the Kab - 











bala eee eee 195, 260 
Light, 
according to Proclus.___ 237 
and Sarkcess —— SMES me tt! | 
Gir ect ON ee Se meer hae 
reflectéd (ieee ae 202 
supreme elie ee aS 
Lilith._note 32, p. 187; note 32, p. 292 
Logos, 
see ‘“‘Word” 
Love 


as the link of the higher and 
lower degrees __ 
as medium of union between 


204 








soul, and God) 04 
kisses ‘of (22 22 2 ee eee 2s, 
place‘ot 3 Ae eee 205 

Lullus, Raymond_________ XXX, 306 
and the Schools of 

Luria and Cordovera__.___._ X XI 


Luria, Isaac 
note 3, p. XXIX, XLII, 156 


M 


Macrocosm and Microcosm___________.134 





Magus, Simon 
see Simon the Magician 
Magi _ de SL ed BN EE ee 
Maimonides, Moses___ LVITI, 239 
his view on a secret doctrine____66 
his view on the names of God___ 70 
his works.__.-___--.___note 27, p. 71 
Man 
as the microcosm. 134, 190 


as understood by Philo— Sy Cees 
celestial—as prototype of 





Terrestrial) 2 eae 
fall Lok; Uh ee 
heavenly, see Adam Kadmon 
higher; oi eee 
lower 202 eee 153 


opinion of Zohar on_____.._.190 
threefold nature of jactmees Aoki AY F 
moral nature of_........_ sd: 





322 





INDEX 


; Page 
Marriage ; 

petiect eh ys 

as considered by Philo_ ne oan 260 


as considered by the Kabbalah 261 
Masorah, dWinition of_note 1, p. XXVII 











ta ae SG OS ee eae OnenS hta fh | 

““Memra,’ ’see ‘‘Word”’ 

Mercy __. Pee eon LO, 19S 
according to Philo. pecan i 2 5 () 
column of _... eet 7.1 

Merkabah 
kh oT os I Sed Ree Ne «© Myf 4 
when permitted to divulge 65 

MECaNia ye Ses note 9, p. 287 

Meshiana note 9, p. 287 

Metaphysics in the Kab- 

Rec 69. 163," 201 
PLGRerOs es 185 
Metempsychosis _...._- id’ 

reer Cte cate Le 200 
MeCPAMICVOACOf ec. eat te 209 


Mirandola, Pico de la 
XV, XXVIII, XXXI 
his metbod of study XXXII 


Mirror 
luminous and non-luminous 
note 29 ,p. 203 


Mishnah 
as secret doctrine... -Sséi73 
Mien yenited es eet 72 
Mohammedanism, sects in_._..._.._LV 
Molitor 
criticism on his “Philosophy 
Sririisiney, oe oo ee OX EX 
Moon, blessing of the... pum 92 
Montha; names sof 282 
Morality, foundation of— 
according to Philo_.______.______._256f 
Morus, Henry..______ MX VI XL 
Moses ben Nachman, 
See Nachmanides 
Moses de Leon 


as probable author of the 
Zohar note 17, p. XXXII, XLIIT 
author of another 





as 
Kabbalistic book —. ..... _ 96 
not the author of the 
Zohar wns ee LR Es 
“‘“Mothers,” three ——~. 134 
Motecallemim eee VU 
Witaziasmeee LVI 


Mystery, book of ________109, 145, Ade 
Mystery of Mysteries______--_.. 


Mysticism, 
meee the Zohar... 104 
Syimbohical . 8 LV. 140 
Mystics, re recognized_________- LIV 
Mythology, 
supplanted by Metaphysics... 307 
N 


Nachmanides, Moses ben Nachman 
(Ramban) te So CURT Pot a BE 
Stfer? Yetzirah 2 85 


328 


Names Fak 
as commentator to the 
the ten mystical of 
DEW erome ci Sh ein 
Natura nathrans 20 ee Pca 166 
Nazarenes ,sect pr PERE, AUS SR ey 
Neto tele esis 8 a 192, 297 
as used in the Sefer Yetzirah 
sote 3, 86 
Nehardea, academy at Puke fone hs bee 
INCG- Hi nesidini ct wid houd teams —__303 
Nom Being yes Vr Cee re ee te 
North, the— 


excluded from the name of 


God To Ee ates 11 BO 
Notarikon 55 0000 5 a am _note 9, a 143 
No-Thing_ AR SES) Pee neta! ' ane Vt Pen Yh | 

meaning of 2.00". GUS SE 198 


N’shamah _note 3, p. 80, , 145, 192, 297 
Drimitiy estes 251 Se "178 
Numbers and Ideas 
theory of—in the Septuagint___.264 











O 
Olam 
INtZ INS peers cme es ee 166 
Bree-oh ____ 185 
Hamutbash pee ee eee OG 
Murgosh __.__ 166 
Musko gai 2 ee 1 6G 
‘Vetziran wes ot in iene ere PTGS 
Onkelos 
Translation of __ et Seer eee 5 
Ophanim (Celestial Wheels)______.90 
Origen 
his views. similar to those 
found in the Zohar_________.142 
Clemied pier se es —note 9, p. 287 
Ostandera ieee nn ee, Se eV TD 
Otiot de Rabba Akiba 
note a, p. 180, 275 


P 


Pagan Philosophy and the Kabbalah.221 
Palestinian Teachers did not 


draw from Greek civilization______237 
Paracel sists ee ee ee XXVIII 
Paradiseee ee = NOC on Dr Oe 
Pentateuch 
Aramaic translation of —.____-73 
Persians, influence of—upon the 
OWE ore eee tate te XVIII, 2386 
Person, Moral, see Roo-ah 
Philo ae ea ee ey eae ee LVIIt 
and the doctrine of Plate 


classification of his writings 240 
LVIII, 252 


distinct from the Kabbalists 
note 10, p. LVIII 


his doctrines and the doctrine of 





the Kabbalah...__._—___240f, 259 

his view on God__ =240, 253 

his © views On ian. =. eee ee, 251 
Physiognomics > ee .182 
POSE GIS ee teeta ee ee XXXVI 


INDEX : 





Page 
iS. PRON Spel erence XXXVII 
“Place; the 2 Reena PER aR) 
Planets ; 

names of the seven—in the Sefer 

Vetrirah ge Oo note 4, p. 80 
lat 

eave the Kabbalah_---..-..--- 163, 213 


his theory of Ideas compared 
with the theory of the 
Sefiroth __-—---—-----—-_-----—---— 215 
his philosophy and the 22 letters 
of the Sefer Yetzirah__.--133 
Pleroma———-~---——--- 276, note 31, p. oe 
oe c hs) Eta ag ASE! 
t abba 
8 233, 240, 243, note 35, p. 281 


SPOINE, (2, the___________---108 
Primitive ----- EY Rae 
Indivisible _..---------------------—---------— 

Pompadita 
Academy of Sane ETE WE 

Porphyrius 9 ~-—-—-----------------—----44 

si oe seeseeqn rn Tea arene or XXXVI 

is translation o 
pee Vetzitabie DOO TA GL 

Predestination, moral --—--------.-------— 199 

Pre-existence 
Pogina Ol tee ep 198 

“Pregnancy” --——--——--—- note 49, p. 251 

Ray PN Ph hs WiC Le Masa a Ute Gy 

Principle 
PS SY Qyaeie Oke alls.. 5 Ribble ss i S2ete > So 193 
ATCA Wid al ee ee ees _194 
malesand wemalen 14a sage 
Ratan Delete tore ee bs 

Psychology of the Kabbalah 
its principle —-——_---—_-___—_---._+ 176 
and that of the Parsees_—----.--.—-- 298 

Pythagoras 
Tetractys of DOI, 
in the writings of Philo. 265 

Q 
SOueens the wane ONg dee 
R 


Rabad (738) } 

see Abraham ben Dior 
Rabban, title, 

definition Of note 38, p. 231 
Ramban (1“29") 

see Nachmanides 


RAS ies eee erin Ree ey he uel Sere eee ae 229 
Recante, Menahem.._.note 26, p. 155 
Reflection (ete ee ee ee eee 204 
Religions 
in their conception of 
TEVelation ys eee PE ee LV 
Religion or Revelation __.________ LITT 
Reminiscence 
OCtEINEs OF jer ee oe Ne Ri ees ae 198 
Responsibility 
personak—, according to Philo__.254 
Resurrection es ot ee ee eee. 287 


Page 

Reuchlin 
and the Kabbalah....#-XV, XXXI 
his method of study__.__-__»_»_ X X XI 


his explanation of the different 
names of God 
note 16, p. XXXITI 


Revelation 

three ways of conceiving... LIII 
Reversibility 

dogma’ (of 50 Lae ae 
Ricci, Paul) 2 ee ee 

He works tooo ies ~ARADLE, 271 
Rittangel wus ee ae ae 
Roe" ee note 48 aaron 
ROO se See ey 145, 192, 292 
Rosenroth, Baron 

Khorr Vous ol ee XL, 272 
Ronanai ie ae note 48, p. 299 


Ru-ah (same as Roo-ah) 
note 17, p. 130 


S 


Saadia tts XLII, LYIII, 82, 98, 239 
his “‘Belief and Opinions” 

note 8, p. LVIIE 

Sabbathai,Zebt 4 ek ee atiees SOS 

Saducees PEE Te eee Ve 
Samael (Sama-ayl) 

note 11, p. 180; 187, 300 

187 





watan 2. eee eee 
Scribe as a noe a oe 
SSULGE op ree ee note 8, p. 127 
Sefer ha-Bahir__.._.tt note 1, p. 78 
Sefer Yetzirah 
analysis)’ ofi.232 Aer age 
atithenticity, [of thei aes 
authorship of the __......_____. 83 


comparison of the two editions. 82 
its method of explaining the 





world and its phenomena 123 
its aspect’ of “Godiss eas 
Postel’s translation of 

the 220) 2 Oe a VE 

Sefiroth 
and the doctrine of the 

Nazareneés 22 2 6 2a e716 
active and passive principles 

in|», ‘the. 4245) 2 a een SG 
as an abstract enumeration__.__128 
as ‘attributes: of “God. 222 is2 
character, otge = ee ee ZG 
considered as a whole ___._ 154 
definition of... note 12, p. 128 
diagramatic representation 

of the.0 Veo ee front page 


division of the _157, 170, 216, 279 
“Father” and ‘‘Mother” 

principle in the______.__159, 216 
evolution of the... 149 
genesis of the 222 2) 148 
in the Old Testament__.....__.___153 





in| the) Mishnah= th se een Sp 
male and female principles 

in the -2 220 3) SS ew aeeeeee 1 D 
names of. 4 seas _-_._--100, 149 


324 





INDEX . 


Page 
MGmnrer Ol ea ee Ns 908 
om construction a... 164 


reason for existence ot, the)? 154 
BaGnauDrincipren Ti thes 0:10 160 
Trinity in the_____. 105, 160, "164 
ASiitey Sri (the (eee ee Be E166 
Selfcompletion 
MMIC Al pe te wee ae ie et See 206 
Selfconsciousness —_........______. 195, 200 
por 1 (FLT; | nu ol ae ae note 10, p 222 
as source in Philo’s 
mysticism Sa EAL SY as ee 263 
inaccuracies in the translation 
Orpen fe note 77, p. 261 
known i in the palin 263 


pete et ye eal ele ee eae 
Seven Doubles SSS EP 135 
Sexual differentiation 174 
Rae Mee oers ee S rote: 8). pi. 127 
“Shalsheleth ha- Kabbalah,” 

‘see Tradition, chairs of 


SHG S07 WE Sees Se a 168 
ppomete. wie et 376, 186;°279,. 300 
Shem-hatnforesh, see 

Tetragrammaton 


Simeon ben Yohai, see 


Yohai, Simeon ,ben 
Simon, = Richard, = ss XVI, XXX 
Clie wy tise es re ee ee 21 
the Magician (Magus)__._.. 1015273 
SiriOcipinialc see ee Oe ee ” 208 
MTV eh erty? Me Alsat Dee a note 8, p. 127 
pte ta Wt Lia Sk ie Seas ae a _216 
SOns Of Godsste ses Be. note 99, p. 206 
Soul 
as conceived by the Zohar 
169, 189f 
elements of—according to 
UCANEU AD y co he TSS ee CR J Sedeed 252 
union ‘of—and spirit________197 
during sleep_______...note 29, p. 292 
seat of—according to Philo__._.252 
SOURCCEGIMeet ere nk se 193 
transmigration: Of. 99, 200 
male and female principle 
Yuma tie peeee ete ora oo 196 
Souls 


the three___.280, 297, note 48, p. 299 
Space, absolute—(Mokaum) 294 
Spinoza. 
and the Kabbalah XIV L6S 
ate (Ru-ah)________-_note 17, p. 130 


oOlyneee Nori Mie ern ene 7'5 
reer ees Oe 192 
SOULCOM Offer e193 
Vitale eee ee 192, 194 


Spirits, evil Mae or os |" 9g 


Serine re eS WP LV 
Sunnis ea es oh ae TV: 
Sura, academy of __....... LVIlT 2286 
Swedenborg, Church of—and 

ther Babbalan 2.2 OK XV 


Page 
T & 


Tabernacles, the seven_._.._...__.187, 206 
Palin wee me is 


evidence of a secret doctrine 





in the l oauecmmumruinreeomeryae ae 
SATIN tinge were ce cee en oY BAG 
ered eee A eee ak note 9, p. 143 


Tennemann__._note 11, p. XXXL XLIX 
Tetragrammaton, 

according to Reuchlin___ XXXIV, 69 
Theosophy, and the Kabbalah_._ X X IIT 


Seraitico eee A Me EAE STA 
BE HOMCIS see egw tee | ALIX 
refutation of his theory. 2952102 


Thought 
as understood in the Kabbalah__162 


cbree | Mothers? be Wag 
gh rederna tery Wg 2 oe ee ee TT 
Time 
according. to. Plates ee 243 
according t0) Philo oe Pa 243 
LOU MU DONC. sons note 28, p. 186 


~ Tradition, Chain of?’ note 29, Deedee 
Tradition, Jewish and Zend Avesta_ -288 


Aransigration 220» ee —__99, 200 
Trinity 
Demir gic ree ee oo ee 35 


in the Sefiroth as opposed to 
in relation to God, Nature 
the Platonic trinity ___.__.._.216 
and Human Soul__._....__.___.196 
in the Sefiroth_._._....105, 160, 164 


Platomice ie Se ae ee es he 34 
LIPECMG tenet nee ae 192 
in the Sepher Yetzirah___.___.134 
OL PESO ye et eee Oe Dal OF a 165 
Tsimtsum 
MeANiN S Or, ee eee eee 157 
STwelve,oimpless: 6. 134, 135 
U 
Unity 


absolute—as basis of the 
Kabbalistic system, substi- 
tuted for dtalisn ee Los, 


according to Philo —___ 247 
Unknown of the Unknown. 146 
Vv 
Valentine; a: =e ee eee anaes 101 
Wane tlelmonty en ee ee XXVIII 
Vessels ace ere et eee een 156, 157, 260 
ENTIT ELLE Sime a oe eee eee LOG 
Vitale Chain): note 3, p. XXIX 
Voysin, Joseph... XXXVI, XXXIX 
WwW 
Meher seat [on cane detiae e  E XVI 

his book ‘‘Spinozaism in 
Judaism’) s.2 oe XLV 
SENN it ey EL CAC hg tee ee PANY b 
VV eee 
expansion and contraction of. _..164 
UR lotr eee cas aie Le ee eee OO IE Se 
in Ecclesiastes ...-.------------—--------- 268. 


325 


INDEX 


Page 

in the same class as 
Kabbaiah___ note 39, p. 231 
Supreme? diabetes tee 





the 32 marvelous path of__81, 126 





Oriental—and the Kabbalah _ ” 104 
MOLE hr ee ee en a ok ar 
SE WVior dre thelr 7 4 

theory of the—in the Sefer 

Vetrrah 23 eS 21e7 US 

267, 273, 274 

according to Philo____________- 245 
conception of—by 

Simon Magus Rea ee ee eS 


doctrine of—in Ecclesiastes.___.__. 267 
Kabbalistic—and the Honover 

















of Zoroaster se 294 
World 
Intelligible Pe 8 2.) SRL He, a oo 
natural pe a ee eee OO 
of emanation aee 166 
Ob Reeling Wi eee er LOG 
view of the Kabbalists 
on the____— AT Fis te tO 
‘Worlds 
the four__105 and note 54; 166, 280 
pre-existence of tebe Raho u | 
Y 
Y ohai 
Simeon, (ben (20 fee i eee 64 
his doctrine as basis of 
the Zohar oo oer pee ee OZ, 
not the originator of the 
Kabbalistic science —~—_-._____ 114 
story of his death —....._..__._.___.116 


Page 
not the author of the Zobar__93 
Yohanan ben Zakkai_.._.._.._.-_-_-__231, 236 


Zacuto, Solomon 
his opinion on the authorship 








of the Zohar. ee 
Zend Avesta and Jewish 
tradition = 283f, 288 
Zerah; Rabbi es ee 
Zerdustions 


sect of__.104, note 4t, p. 296, 300 
Zervanitis 

SECC Ol fa bee es Oe 
Zion 

as the seat of Wisdom —_.____268 
Zippori, Rabbi Joseph of____.__-__._ 73 
Zohar re ran abner tate eal nn 

analysis of ‘opinions on the 

authorship of the __________ 89f 

and the doctrine of Philo_____ 246 

and the Sefer Yetzirah 138 

basis of its doctrine —.____138 

characteristics of the _..__--_——s«xgB&7 

gradual development A fF | 


its introduction into Europe ___114 
language of ‘the 4.0 eee 





origin of (the 23 ae 
Zoharites, sect ofl. ae aa, aoe 
Zomah,) ben 205 ee eee 


influence of the religion of— 
Zoroaster 282, 284 
upon the Jews.________ 284f 
Zoroastrism in the Old Testament— 286 
and the Kabbalah ..__.__ XIX 














326 





Page 
Page 


Page 
Page 


Page 
Page 
Page 


Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 


Page 
Page 
Page 


ISAT ak Uva 


66, note 8. Instead n“2pn read “307. 


Insert the word 1p’ before “should have been 


G/, anoteiv. 
translated.” 
1135. no0ter6o; 


Read sn50°n» instead of n3DnD 


142, line 11 from top. Insert the word “the” between “than” 
and *‘events.” 


161, note 46, 


line 6. Read xnv5n) instead of XnDn} 


163, line 5 from bottom. Insert after “type” the word 515+ 


Lie novema: 


Instead of “here shown,’ read “shown at the 


beginning of the book.” 


175, note 78. 
Tope votee Lo: 


184, note a. 


Insert’ ‘I2)atter ‘ch 2 
Read D578 instead of ws 


Read 195'n instead of 1957 


190, note 4. Read Asin: instead of nysini. 


202, note 28. 


Insert the word 8&7) after the words “comes 


from the root.” 


234, line 20 from top. Insert (votc¢) after “Intelligence.” 


265, note 93. 
291, note 23. 


Insert GoQatog xal dxataoxeiaotoc. 


Insert Xv’o after “sect.” 











Sed 


ky 


‘Fe a ie 
» a (eer: : 
Nae a r ma 


ra 





Date Due 





“Th 





= 

A 
A 

: 

-f 
mae 


om 
Rovas 
4g 


NOV 30 uae 
AN 94 Ai 
named | 
AN 


Male. ¢ “hoe 
: or | ul 





1eologic seminary-Speer Library 


Io 


1 1012 01011 966 


races 


net 


4 
% 
é 
aig 


.*, 





